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 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: 4411
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

by BNA » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:02 pm

BNA
 

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: 1679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW

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

Postby 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: 18256
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:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5820
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: 4765
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: 6382
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?

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.
human909
 
Posts: 4765
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.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3578
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: 1679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:20 am

simonn wrote: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.

Yes. And the point is still lost on the breeze. Are we now having a quads competition?

simonn wrote: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.


It is quite hillarious that the perspectives in this discussion are so polarly opposed that one side barely understands the other. The point is not that YOU can't swap bikes and clothes but that in Australia much of the commuters are enthusiasts not every day people. Until we encourage and may cycling attractive for every day people we cannot expect widespread adoption. :wink:

Which of course gets back to helmets. :mrgreen:
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:01 pm

human909 wrote:The point is... ...that in Australia much of the commuters are enthusiasts not every day people.


And this is the norm worldwide. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the norm.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:33 pm

simonn wrote:
human909 wrote:The point is... ...that in Australia much of the commuters are enthusiasts not every day people.


And this is the norm worldwide. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the norm.


I think you need to get out more. Across the globe bicycles are primarily a transport device use by people who find it practical and affordable.

Again getting back to helmet, I and others want Australia to be a place where non enthusiasts want to ride. MHLs are a hindrance to this goal.
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:32 pm

simonn wrote:
human909 wrote:The point is... ...that in Australia much of the commuters are enthusiasts not every day people.


And this is the norm worldwide. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the norm.

I think you are misreading how the majority of cycle commuters in other countries view their cycling.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Biffidus » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:02 pm

Comedian wrote:Airbags do not work for unbelted occupants.

According to wikipedia airbags were developed specifically for occupants not restrained by seatbelts. When seatbelts are in common use the airbag design is different as it is intended to prevent whiplash rather than impact with the dashboard/steering wheel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#As_a_supplement_to_seat_belts

As for the enthusiasts, if you're on this forum (or a cyclist in Australia) it's likely that you are one. The important distinction is utility versus recreational cycling. Utility cyclists are the ones using their bikes in the way most of us use our cars or public transport; going from A-B, in our everyday clothes because it is convenient to do so. Recreational cyclists are out in spite of the inconvenience because they really like bikes/cycling.

Helmets might not deter the recreational cyclists but they will deter the other 99% who might otherwise use it to zip down to the shops for bread and milk or into the city because it's easier than finding a park.

That's my 2c anyway.
User avatar
Biffidus
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: RADelaide

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

Postby simonn » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:13 pm

il padrone wrote:
simonn wrote:
human909 wrote:The point is... ...that in Australia much of the commuters are enthusiasts not every day people.


And this is the norm worldwide. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the norm.

I think you are misreading how the majority of cycle commuters in other countries view their cycling.

If Copenhagen was normal WRT cycling you would not have sites like copenhagnize would you? They are an exception.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3578
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby il padrone » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:47 pm

Everyday cyclists in...

Amsterdam
Image

Paris
Image

Berlin
Image

Hamburg
Image

Pisa
Image

Strasbourg
Image

Brussels
Image

Many cities across Europe have a high level of cycle commuting, and one theme that you will find is the prevalence of ordinary people, riding roadster-style bikes in street clothing. Participation rates may differ (Copenhagen having the highest rates of course), but the attitude to cycling as normal transport, and the style in which it is pursued, are generally pretty similar. I won't even mention the huge numbers of commuter cyclists across Asia.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby DavidS » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:17 pm

human909 wrote:It is quite hillarious that the perspectives in this discussion are so polarly opposed that one side barely understands the other. The point is not that YOU can't swap bikes and clothes but that in Australia much of the commuters are enthusiasts not every day people. Until we encourage and may cycling attractive for every day people we cannot expect widespread adoption. :wink:

Which of course gets back to helmets. :mrgreen:


Absolutely, the point is to make cycling a "normal" option for short to medium trips for a large proportion of the population. We need to remove barriers and disincentives to cycling and MHLs do not encourage cycling, quite the opposite.

Il Padrone, I immediately thought of Asian cities and their cyclists when you posted those pics, good to see you mentioned it at the end. In lots of less wealthy countries bicycles are a major form of transport: cheap, efficient, cut through traffic etc. This is what bikes were invented to do and they do it very well and they do it in many, many places.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Percrime » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:29 pm

Comedian wrote:Airbags do not work for unbelted occupants.


Absolutely wrong But apparently the optimum timing is different. So they fire at different speeds. (from memory I think they fire more violently ) if the car is going to a market without seat belt laws.

EDIT.. I see this has already been answered. I really thought it was common knowledge tho.
Percrime
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:41 pm

DavidS wrote:Il Padrone, I immediately thought of Asian cities and their cyclists when you posted those pics, good to see you mentioned it at the end. In lots of less wealthy countries bicycles are a major form of transport: cheap, efficient, cut through traffic etc. This is what bikes were invented to do and they do it very well and they do it in many, many places.


Asia and Africa both have a dominance of the bicycle as a utility device rather than a recreational device, but as you say wealth is a factor. Japan is a very wealthy nation where utility cycling is commonplace something that is often forgotten in discussions focussing on Copenhagen and Amsterdam. In fact the main places that the bicycle is primarily viewed as a recreational device are the UK and its immigrant colonies of Canada, US, NZ and AUS. Southern Europe of Italy and Greece may be recreational dominant, I'm not sure.


To reiterate, I and others, are not against enthusiasts cyclists! The fact that I am on this forum and passionately argue about it is evidence that I am an enthusiast. My love of bikes, cycling and the benefits it brings dense cities means that I would like to see most people on bikes, even non enthusiasts!

Some enthusiasts are less keen on letting non enthusiast share their world of cycling. :(
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:47 pm

Oh, yeah. Bicycling in Tokyo :) :wink:
Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby ZepinAtor » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:51 pm

Loving the bike parking arrangement above with bikes just casually placed, un-locked & ready to roll.

This is my biggest deterrent here in Brisbane. I would NEVER leave any bike of any description outside ANY shopping complex without fear of it being stolen or vandalised.

Just this afternoon I drove 2km to pick up 2kg of bananas.

Reasons for driving :-

Afternoon traffic is rubbish, not that I can't handle it.

Bike parking security-Nil

Helmet wearing ? I could take it or leave it, although I am regular serious road/MTB racing type so helmets go with the territory.

If I was not a fairly fit active human being you could add a massive hill to the list.

So there's 4 legitimate reasons NOT to ride a bike in my area. Hills, helmets, traffic, bike parking.

Sadly it's not likely to change in the next 10 years unless they ban cars or run out of fuel to power them.
Gas propulsion.......it's natural don't fight it.
User avatar
ZepinAtor
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Brizzzzbane Everton Hillzzzz

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:09 pm

NZ brain injuries at 'epidemic' levels

while there is no specific link to cycling, it is consistent with growing evidence that head trauma is a far more serious problem than has been historically acknowledged.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8627
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 Xplora » Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:30 pm

jules21 wrote:NZ brain injuries at 'epidemic' levels

while there is no specific link to cycling, it is consistent with growing evidence that head trauma is a far more serious problem than has been historically acknowledged.

Could it be that NZ has a reputation for extreme sports and so forth, that contributes to this?

Or could it be that injuries are part of the facts of life, and even with the MHL in NZ you can still expect a bunch of head injuries across the population? It is telling that a country with bicycle MHL seems to have a higher rate of brain injury than other developed countries (which normally do not have MHL, except for us?).

The evidence just doesn't back MHL up...
Xplora
 
Posts: 5820
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit