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 il padrone » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:03 pm

John Lewis wrote:I suspect the Dutch may only travel a comparatively short distance. If you have to commute a long distance then work clothing may not be as appropriate and end of trip facilities are needed to freshen up, change etc.


I spoke of distances in a post above. There are many people who drive their cars for very short distances. I think the average trip distance in Melbourne is well below 10kms. These are the commute journeys that need to be replaced with bike journeys.

People keep on raising the same old barriers, when what is needed is a re-evaluation of what matters and small changes by many. Just a 10% drop in traffic on our roads would dramatically relieve congestion levels* for all, and significantly reduce CO2 emissions and fuel consumption.

* We see it when the construction industry has their RDO, and during the school holidays.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17428
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

by BNA » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:16 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby damhooligan » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:16 pm

jules21 wrote:
il padrone wrote:Which group do the Aussie commuters seem to resemble most? Is this really the way to build mass cycle use for transport? Methinks not.

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. if you're concerned that "ordinary" riders are underrepresented 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.


Not just what they wear, but also the need to go fast.
Hence the need for a shower afterwards.
Hence the need for end of trip facitlties.

I cycle relaxed and slowly, no need for a shower..(wil be different on the way home....)
I use a commuter bike,one that is functional, and not too flash/expensive, so no need for bike storage.
altough it would be appreciated, its not needed, A good lock wil do fine.
Or bike insurance that wil cover theft.

A lot of australian cycling commuters pay a lot of attention to the bike, has to be fast.
the clothing, has to be fast, so that the commute can be fast...
But not enough think, I ride, to get to work.
fast is not needed, but it seems to be soo important for so many cyclists.

And this is clearly what the pictures off IP show, the current image is so that fast is alomst a 'requirement' for todays commuting.
It comes across , that if you want to be part of todays commute, you wil 'need' all the gear.
fancy bike, and clothing, so you can go fast.

This is far from promoting commuting as a viable option for everyone.
For a commute you should only need 1 thing.
A bike.

Unfortunatly , we need 2 things, a bike plus helmet.
the helmet is not promoting cycling as something that suits everyone.
It only suits those that are willing to exept wearing a helmet.

And if people have to wear a helmet, well ... why not wear the rest...
And if we wear the whole outfit, well... why not 'use it' .
if we have to wear a helmet, wich is assosiated with danger and speed, its not strange that our cycling behaviour does change ...
I believe this effect of the helmet is a big cause of how we commute today.
and cant say im happy with that.

I would be happy if we could go back to the basics, the bike.
Just that, the bike.
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 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:18 pm

il padrone wrote:Helmet, lycra, road bike. To many people in Australia (those in cars, walking to/from the station) this is the image they have of cycle commuting. Many of them don't see themselves picking up that baton.

i disagree. although this is hard to prove, my impression is (and others have written about it, i'm not the only one) that in australia, motoring is a sign of higher social status. by contrast, cycling traditionally says "i can't afford a car" or "i lost my license". in recent times, we've seen a rebellion against this paradigm by younger members of the middle class in inner suburbs, who have taken to alternative forms of transport, including cycling. i've always interpreted this as a metaphorical middle finger to their materialistic baby boomer parents. but in the outer suburbs, where the hipster movement has yet to catch on, the motor vehicle remains king.

lycra-clad roadies are bucking the lower socio-economic connotations of cycling, by riding bikes and with gear that costs more than many cars ("look at me! i can obviously afford a car, i'm choosing to ride!"). in a sense, this is agreeing with your point. but really, i'd argue it's just a symptom of the broader problem - that cyclists are perceived as a group to take pity on as you cruise past in your luxury automobile (thus the anger when the reality of being stuck in traffic as cyclists do the cruising past, but that's another point..) this is where we differ to northern europeans.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8373
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 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:23 pm

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.
human909
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:26 pm

Jules I think the low socio-economic status furphy disappeared about 10-15 years ago. Talk to your neighbours, your non-cycling family, work colleagues and friends. My experience is that they are often positive to the idea of riding to work, station shops or pub, but can't see ways past the practical difficulties and social expectations of the decision.

The things that I hear that put them off are:

1. Distance (well we can't do too much about that apart from using multi-mode or moving house),
2. It's too hard (ie. "like all those roadie types flying along - I can't do that"),
3. Have to wear odd clothing and get changed (no facilities, don't want to look goofy), and
4. Have to do other things, collect kids, shopping etc (strangely the dutch have this problem as well, there are ways to deal with it).
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17428
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:31 pm

It seems that many cycling enthusiasts still can't get past their narrow view of cycling. Sure embrace Lycra, speed and $5000 bikes if that is what does it for you. But don't kid yourself or try to convince others that your way of cycle commuting will ever encourage mainstream commuter cycling.

Fortunately in some parts of Australia it isn't like that. Contrast this group to the group shown earlier. :wink:

Image

Also observe that there are FAR FAR more female cyclists. This is mainstream commuter cycling! A group of NORMAL people riding PRACTICAL bikes (that don't need special security), at speeds that won't have them needing showers at their destination.
Last edited by human909 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:34 pm

Canning Street bike boulevard near the Dan O'Connell in North Carlton for those who don't know the area. Major cycle commuter route from Melbourne's northern suburbs :wink:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17428
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:34 pm

il padrone wrote: Jules I think the low socio-economic status furphy disappeared about 10-15 years ago. Talk to your neighbours, your non-cycling family, work colleagues and friends. My experience is that they are often positive to the idea of riding to work, station shops or pub, but can't see ways past the practical difficulties and social expectations of the decision.

but i don't believe them. talk to the same people about why they bought a 2.5 tonne 4WD, and they'll very convincingly articulate why they need it - the towing capacity, the seating for the kids, the ability to explore areas you can't with a car. no one ever says "i just needed to feel more important than others when i'm next to them in traffic" - yet psychologists are adamant this is a key factor in many such purchases. let's not turn this into a 4wd bashing thread, i'm just using it as an example of why you can't go by what people tell you when discussing social status and its manifestations. people intuitively or subconsciously lie (or are just confused).

il padrone wrote: The things that I hear that put them off are:

1. Distance (well we can't do too much about that apart from multi-mode or moving house,
2. It's too hard (ie. "like all those roadie types flying along - I can't do that"),
3. Have to wear odd clothing and get changed (no facilities, don't want to look goofy), and
4. Have to do other things, collect kids, shopping etc (strangely the dutch have this problem as well, there are ways to deal with it).

i don't doubt these are real factors to. the one i get regularly is "oohhh... you're braver than me, i wouldn't mix it up with car traffic, the way people drive..."
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8373
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 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:39 pm

Jules you seem to come up with 1000s of obscure reasons why people are not cycling. Yet you deny the effect of MHLs which is a direct restriction on cycling which had direct and measurable effects. It all reeks a little bit of desperation in trying to find arguments to support your opinion.

(Not that I'm claiming that some of your obscure reasons have some effect.)
human909
 
Posts: 4191
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:47 pm

Yeah, OK Jules, you go and make up your own reasons eh :lol: :lol: :lol:

Meantime many people own motor vehicles and still manage to not use them for every journey. It is not essential to drive.... but make cycling harder, less pleasant and driving (physically easier) becomes the choice. What is needed is to make cycling easier than the drive - in a whole host of ways. This is what the Dutch and other European countries have worked at doing.

Listen to what Hans Brekker, his wife Karla and others have to say about cycling and helmet use on here (from 1:14 on and at intervals through the video)

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17428
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 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:56 pm

jules21 wrote:
il padrone wrote: The things that I hear that put them off are:

1. Distance (well we can't do too much about that apart from multi-mode or moving house,
2. It's too hard (ie. "like all those roadie types flying along - I can't do that"),
3. Have to wear odd clothing and get changed (no facilities, don't want to look goofy), and
4. Have to do other things, collect kids, shopping etc (strangely the dutch have this problem as well, there are ways to deal with it).

i don't doubt these are real factors to. the one i get regularly is "oohhh... you're braver than me, i wouldn't mix it up with car traffic, the way people drive..."
[/quote]
I get too far, too skeery and too hot. The same excuses apply to walking IME. Don't count on MHL repeal to change too much. Infrastructure and attitudes will still suck, MHL or no.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

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

[quote="Xplora":flying bicycles]
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:flying bicycles]

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:flying bicycles]
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:flying bicycles]

I don't understand why you bring up seatbelts. Seatbelt efficacy is well settled, as is seatbelt [i:flying bicycles]law[/i:flying bicycles] 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:flying bicycles]
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:flying bicycles]

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

[quote:flying bicycles]
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:flying bicycles]

Huh. People believe it's dangerous to [i:flying bicycles]walk[/i:flying bicycles] 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:flying bicycles]Taiping[/i:flying bicycles] 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:flying bicycles]there[/i:flying bicycles] 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:flying bicycles]Kable[/i:flying bicycles], 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: 1209
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:
Xplora
 
Posts: 4665
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm

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: 1195
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: 4191
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
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3436
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: 8373
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 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: 1209
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:
Xplora
 
Posts: 4665
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm

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: 1209
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: 4391
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: 17428
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: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 49Vanguard



Top Bikes & Gear
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Cell Bikes Cell Bikes AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist