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 KenGS » Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:00 pm

jules21 wrote:
greyhoundtom wrote:
News Release 8th November 2012

The hype about US shale oil is obscuring the bald fact that, like the Bass Strait oilfields, the output from many of the world’s super-giant oilfields is in serious decline and is only just being matched by new small fields being discovered and brought into production now.

this is misleading. shale oil has 2 problems:
1. it is only marginally economical to extract at current oil prices. that will clearly change as crude oil reserves continue to be depleted.
2. its extraction is environmentally disastrous.

on the "plus" side, there are vast reserves of shale oil and there is no shortage of it. the question is - how badly do we want to get at it?

And shale oil production declines at rates of around 40% after the first year. In the US the average shale oil well produces around 140 barrels per day compared to conventional wells that produce 100,000 bpd
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

by BNA » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:24 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:24 pm

Comedian wrote:At the same time politicians will be forced to rush bicycle infrastructure into place at a time when the cost of construction will be at an all time high. It's likely there will be temporary measures like traffic lanes claimed and separated.

What cost of construction? All that is needed is a bit of paint and lane re-alignment :idea: .

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19668
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Comedian » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:59 pm

il padrone wrote:
Comedian wrote:At the same time politicians will be forced to rush bicycle infrastructure into place at a time when the cost of construction will be at an all time high. It's likely there will be temporary measures like traffic lanes claimed and separated.

What cost of construction? All that is needed is a bit of paint and lane re-alignment :idea: .

Image


Those are the temporary measures I spoke of. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Never mind what they are going to do with those stupid tunnels...
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: 4414
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby damhooligan » Sat Nov 24, 2012 11:10 pm

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/art ... _news.html

Sad story, a 3 year old riding his bike was ran over by speeding p-plater.
Injuries to legs, but is stable now.

Followed by a police officer saying ;
"We don't hand out fines for not wearing helmets or speeding just for fun, we do it to stop people from getting hurt and to learn good habits."

Really ?? you had to mention helmets... ???
*sigh*
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 » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:20 am

damhooligan wrote:Followed by a police officer saying ;
"We don't hand out fines for.. speeding just for fun, we do it to stop people from getting hurt and to learn good habits."*

yep, that driver can think about the permanent injuries he's caused to that toddler every time he looks at his bank balance and realises it's $200 down on what it should be. let that be a lesson :roll:
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9063
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 il padrone » Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:14 am

Recent study on the operations and effectiveness of Melbourne and Brisbane Bikeshare schemes

Image

“Participants who had not used CityCycle frequently described mandatory helmet laws as a reason for not using the scheme. Focus group participants felt the requirement to use a helmet reduced the spontaneity often associated with public bike share scheme use.”



Gotta love it that the Qld road safety research centre is called CARRS-Q :roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19668
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Biffidus » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:48 am

Indeed. Even if you have a helmet, who wants to carry it round everywhere?

How many of you would cycle to a party, business meeting or just into town to meet some friends at the pub? Using a car for these things is easier for most people because of traffic, distance and having to wear a helmet. Of those factors, the helmet problem is the only one that doesn't require significant infrastructure changes. Why not start there?
User avatar
Biffidus
 
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: RADelaide

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

Postby DavidS » Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:27 pm

jules21 wrote:
il padrone wrote:.....and despite all that, the serious head injuries still occur :o

Image


il padrone wrote:.....and despite all that, the serious head injuries still occur :o


Do I need to say any more?

Il Padrone, that pic would make a fabulous poster.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Philipthelam » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:59 pm

Biffidus wrote:Indeed. Even if you have a helmet, who wants to carry it round everywhere?

How many of you would cycle to a party, business meeting or just into town to meet some friends at the pub? Using a car for these things is easier for most people because of traffic, distance and having to wear a helmet. Of those factors, the helmet problem is the only one that doesn't require significant infrastructure changes. Why not start there?


The helmet stays with the bike. Pretty simple really. Put the helmet on and when you lock/park your bike then wrap the lock around the strap. Done. No need to carry it around everywhere.

Bike share is different. Carrying a helmet into the city/place to where the bike share is and then having to take it home after your ride is inconvenient.
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby Philipthelam » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:00 pm

Would you wear a helmet if you ride on the road amongst many other bigger vehicles?
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby Philipthelam » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:20 pm

il padrone wrote:If you really don't care....... what are you doing posting on this thread ???


Because I don't agree with what you have said.

If you look from PAGE 1 of this thread you see the same anti-MHL people commenting. After that you also see the random people come in that disagree with these anti-MHL people. The same group of anti-MHL people swarm onto the random until he stops posting. Then the anti-MHL people camp here once more waiting for another person to pounce on...

So what have you done in the last 4 years you have camped on this thread? Actually done something about what you feel so strongly about? Or do you have other motives for posting in this thread?
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:17 pm

Philipthelam wrote:Bike share is different. ..having to take it home after your ride is inconvenient.

So just confirming that this is precisely what Biffidus said. Good.

I don't have a choice about riding on the road, or the share path, or the park... the only place I can ride my bike without a helmet, legally, is my backyard. I don't ride MTBs, and I wouldn't ride singletrack without a lid.

You're entitled to disagree. But your points are subject to response, this isn't a court where the judge decides who is right and wrong. I personally have completed changed my views as a result of this thread, and a lot of my thinking and approach is the result of ongoing comments and posting by Padrone.

It is interesting to me that you have noticed that the same people are commenting. You'll see AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN the various people supporting MHLs that I've torn to pieces with no further response. I presume that is because they think I'm correct. They had a lot to say before my responses. :lol: I don't see antiMHL people giving up because they actually believe in what they have to say. I believe in a free country and MHL is taking a big dump on that freedom on the main hobby and transport option for me these days. If you aren't affected, well that's great. God help you if something you want to do is made illegal without any justification or evidence.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6818
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby DavidS » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:08 pm

Philipthelam wrote:Would you wear a helmet if you ride on the road amongst many other bigger vehicles?


Gee, until MHLs I did, so I see no reason why I wouldn't do the same now especially since the traffic is slower and the vehicles have better brakes, handling and suspension and given the road toll is much lower now, indicating safer road conditions (less drunk drivers, more enforcement of speeding and red light running), etc, etc, etc. So my answer, as someone who rides every day on roads I share with much bigger vehicles (I am a commuter cyclist), I would say yes, I would ride on the same roads without a lump of foam on my head.

But there is another point here isn't there? Nobody who opposes MHLs is asking that helmets be banned, what we are asking for is the freedom to make the choice for ourselves. If you don't feel safe sharing a road with large vehicles without a helmet then wear a helmet. If I do feel safe sharing the road with large vehicles I don't wear a helmet, except . . . I don't have that choice, so until the laws are repealed the question is redundant.

While we're on the topic, these large vehicles you talk of, do they include maybe cars, trucks, even trams? Well your flimsy lump of foam is little match for these big vehicles so, again, your question is redundant because bicycle helmets are no match for a large heavy vehicle. Maybe the question for you should be whether you wear a motorcycle helmet when sharing the road with large vehicles, because that's the only helmet which would give you the protection you need if hit by a large vehicle.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:14 pm

DavidS wrote:Maybe the question for you should be whether you wear a motorcycle helmet when sharing the road with large vehicles, because that's the only helmet which would give you the protection you need if hit by a large vehicle.

Maybe...

Lots of motorcyclists don't survive, even with such a full helmet on when involved in collisions with such vehicles :(
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19668
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby elantra » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:40 am

DavidS wrote:But there is another point here isn't there? Nobody who opposes MHLs is asking that helmets be banned, what we are asking for is the freedom to make the choice for ourselves. If you don't feel safe sharing a road with large vehicles without a helmet then wear a helmet. If I do feel safe sharing the road with large vehicles I don't wear a helmet, except . . . I don't have that choice, so until the laws are repealed the question is redundant.
DS


What gives me the poops is how helmet law becomes such a cop-out for failure to acheive a generally safer riding environment
When something goes badly wrong it becomes an issue of "was the person using the helmet correctly" instead of "why did the collision occur"
Helmet law is just a massive cop-out for state and federal governments too scared to enact better standards of driver behaviour in the general community.

Anybody who spends more than 5 minutes on the road in any sort of vehicle will see that P-Platers are appalling drivers and many heavy vehicle operators think that they own the road.
As far as government is concerned improving driver behaviour falls into the "too hard" basket.
Easier to flog the helmet use issue or other such "take the easy road" options.
"Technology gives us much more information but Education is never be able to give us the skill to evaluate it"
User avatar
elantra
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:01 am
Location: Trying to avoid the Brisbane traffic.

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

Postby Ross » Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:39 am

Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:11 pm

The article Ross linked follows the article by Elliot Fishman based on "research" by Elliot Fishman done for the "safety" organisation CARRS( :roll: ).

EDITED.
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:51 pm

human909 wrote:The article Ross linked follows the article by Elliot Fishman based on "research" by Elliot Fishman done for the "safety" organisation CARRS( :roll: ).

EDITED.

Focus groups hey? I call lies and BS. These groups are guided by a facilitator and they don't provide quantitative data. One person said something. Good for them. Would anyone be willing to use this thread as a "focus group"? The report can say "Xplora showed mercy for people supporting MHL in 1 of 100 posts, so it is clear that MHL is a illogical option".
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6818
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby jules21 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:00 pm

... unless it supports your position, in which case it may be quoted as "evidence". there are arguments for and against MHLs, pretending that anyone disagreeing with your view is a liar and verging on being committed to an asylum - you're only convincing yourself(s).
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9063
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 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:24 pm

jules21 wrote:... unless it supports your position, in which case it may be quoted as "evidence". there are arguments for and against MHLs, pretending that anyone disagreeing with your view is a liar and verging on being committed to an asylum - you're only convincing yourself(s).

The evidence in favour of helmets is subject to scrutiny. By all means, do the same to the anti-MHL literature. So far, it seems that Rissell bloke isn't squeaky clean... but the group of alternative research to his doesn't appear to have issues? :?:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6818
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby baabaa » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:24 pm

Seeing motor bike helmets and Asia (in India helmets are not mandatory on religious grounds) have made it into this “discussion” I thus post this….

Helmet relief proving fatal TNN Nov 24, 2012, 06.32AM IST

NEW DELHI: Exempting women from wearing helmets while driving a two-wheeler or riding pillion is proving disastrous. Doctors at AIIMS Trauma Centre, which gets over 1,000 such cases every year, say mortality rate for accident victims not wearing helmets is more than double — a fact highlighted in a recent AIIMS study.

The study shows that the centre received 2,178 patients who were injured in bike accidents between 2010 and 2011. "About 68.52% women who were driving a bike were wearing a helmet as against 4.4% women pillion riders. Among men, the helmet use was 56% for drivers and 37.14% for pillion riders," said Dr Jiten Jaipuria, who analyzed the details. "Most of the victims who were wearing helmets received injuries in the lower limb (29.04%) while those who were not wearing the helmets received severe head injuries (24.49%). The rate of mortality and morbidity was higher in the latter," he added.

Helmet use, experts say, reduces mortality risk by 45.4% notwithstanding age, sex and time of day when the injury occurred and presence of alcohol/drugs. "Helmets insulate one from serious head injury, the most common cause of death," said Dr M C Misra, chief of the AIIMS trauma centre.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -accidents
User avatar
baabaa
 
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:37 pm

Lies I tell thee! Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, Hamburg are all creations of the anti-MHL zelots! :lol:

There is not a single bit of real life evidence that MHLs lead to a safer society for cycling. Yet there is plenty of evidence and research to show that MHLs do not lead to safer conditions for cycling. Instead MHL promoters have to resort to rubbishing others research and 'think of the children' type claims regarding allowing helmetless riders. :roll:

It is not to dissimilar to people arguing against evolution and advocating creationism. Of course we can find all sorts of 'evidence' and resarch supporting creationism and even arguments of the problems of peer review. However when it people come back to reality and look at the facts around them it isn't too hard to recognise hogwash.

The fact is that countries where cycling is safe and commonplace do not have MHLs.
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jcjordan » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:51 pm

human909 wrote:Lies I tell thee! Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, Hamburg are all creations of the anti-MHL zelots! .


These cities are also a poor piece of evidence to justify the removal of MHL in Australia.

There layout, structure and history are so different that they can not be made a example of what Australia could develop.

Having watched this thread for a while it seems to me that both sides of this argument have denigrated to the level of propaganda and rhetoric with little peer reviewed evidence.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:53 pm

BTW all the 'research' is simply a PhD student want to get his Doctorate. Pool together a few figures, a few focus groups and wham bam you can call yourself a doctor. :roll: Naturally there is more than one single reason why the bikeshare is not popoular, but common sense along with comparisons to other cities tells us the main one is MHLs.

Elliot Fishman comes to the conclusion that "There is little doubt rescinding helmet laws would boost bike share usage in Australia. However until the full population health/safety impacts have been carefully assessed, such a move may have unintended consequences." His research never touched on the benefits or costs of getting rid of MHLs so he cannot comment on the "consequences" beyond encouraging bikeshare use. However given that his research is sponsored by CARRS one can only guess how they would have reacted if he came out advocating no MHLs. :wink: Unfortunately his 'research' is being used and quoted as some sort of argument against those wanting to repeal MHLs. :roll:

jcjordan wrote:
human909 wrote:Lies I tell thee! Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, Hamburg are all creations of the anti-MHL zelots! .


These cities are also a poor piece of evidence to justify the removal of MHL in Australia.

There layout, structure and history are so different that they can not be made a example of what Australia could develop.

Having watched this thread for a while it seems to me that both sides of this argument have denigrated to the level of propaganda and rhetoric with little peer reviewed evidence.


They are not a poor piece of evidence! They are an indisputable example that cycling can be VERY safe without helmets and without MHLs! There are no cities that can be used an example of highly safe cycling conditions which have MHLs.

Of course none of this conclusively proves that Australia removing MHLs will ultimately lead to safer conditions. This conclusive proof is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain! There is certainly is peer reviewed evidence showing are not beneficial to health and safety. There is no peer reviewed evidence showing the MHLs result in improved safety for cyclists.
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:40 pm

human909 wrote:BTW all the 'research' is simply a PhD student want to get his Doctorate. Pool together a few figures, a few focus groups and wham bam you can call yourself a doctor. :roll: Naturally there is more than one single reason why the bikeshare is not popoular, but common sense along with comparisons to other cities tells us the main one is MHLs.

Oh, common sense tells us so! That's all right then, why worry about actual data when there's common sense to be had!

I'll tell you something about the Brisbane bikeshare: I believe the focus groups. The signup procedure was ridiculously convoluted (hopefully it's improved), the stations are inconveniently located and cycling infrastructure is far from ideal. MHL repeal won't solve any of these problems. Other things can, and should, be done. That's what I understand the article to be arguing for. It seems like a reasonable contention to me. I don't understand what the fuss is about.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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