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 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 I don't have that choice, so until the laws are repealed the question is redundant.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: 1774
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:01 am
Location: Trying to avoid the Brisbane traffic.

by BNA » Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:39 am

BNA
 

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

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

Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3675
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: 4728
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".
Xplora
 
Posts: 5608
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: 8557
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? :?:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5608
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: 302
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: 4728
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: 1045
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: 4728
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: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Biffidus » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:11 pm

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

Motorbikes are different... much faster and falling off is much more serious (I speak from experience).

elantra wrote:Easier to flog the helmet use issue or other such "take the easy road" options.

Much like the focus on "creeping" there are far worse behaviours that are common but not as easily addressed like tailgating and overly aggressive or inattentive driving.
User avatar
Biffidus
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: RADelaide

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:15 pm

high_tea wrote: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'm sorry. What actual data? Oh sorry did you mean 'focus groups' . :lol:

high_tea wrote:I'll tell you something about the Brisbane bikeshare: I believe the focus groups

Ok great! :) Well the focus group in question "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 PBSS use." In addition, in Melbourne focus groups 61%** cite having to wear helmets or lack of available helmets as a barrier.
*Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach (2012)
**Alta Bike Share (2011). Melbourne bike share survey, Melbourne.

Since you believe focus groups surely now you are convinced. :wink: Or is it only focus groups that agree with you. :lol:

high_tea wrote: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.

Neither article is arguing this. Try re reading them.
human909
 
Posts: 4728
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 7:30 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote: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'm sorry. What actual data? Oh sorry did you mean 'focus groups' . :lol:


No, I meant actual data, lack of which creates gaps that people attempt to fill with focus groups and worse.

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:I'll tell you something about the Brisbane bikeshare: I believe the focus groups

Ok great! :) Well the focus group in question "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 PBSS use." In addition, in Melbourne focus groups 61%** cite having to wear helmets or lack of available helmets as a barrier.
*Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach (2012)
**Alta Bike Share (2011). Melbourne bike share survey, Melbourne.

Since you believe focus groups surely now you are convinced. :wink: Or is it only focus groups that agree with you. :lol:


Oh, I agree with them about the helmets too. ISTR the Brisbane focus group said roughly the same thing. But yeah, it's only a focus group.

high_tea wrote: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.

Neither article is arguing this. Try re reading them.[/quote]

When I read the second last paragraph:

In order to bring Australian bike share usage closer to international norms (short of removing helmet legislation) the following measures should be considered:

substantial improvements to the bicycle lane/path network
lower speed limits
integration with public transport smartcard ticketing
significant increase in docking stations and bicycles (particularly Melbourne)
improved helmet availability.


...it sure seemed that way to me. The title was a bit of a giveaway too.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:46 pm

high_tea wrote:In order to bring Australian bike share usage closer to international norms (short of removing helmet legislation) the following measures should be considered:

The author admits helmets are the main issue! But addressing MHLs were never part of the SCOPE of the study.

The Author's own research SHOWS that it is mostly about helmets! But it also shows a number of other factors. That is what the article is about! I'll quote him again "Whilst no silver bullet exists in overcoming the challenges of operating PBSS within a mandatory helmet context..."

Given that the studies own research shows that helmets are the biggest factor yet concludes that "In order to increase the popularity of the CityCyclescheme, the results of this study suggest that a more accessible, spontaneous sign-up process is required, 24/7 opening hours, and greater incentives to sign up new members and casual users, as seeing people using CityCycle appears critical to further take up." Notice that MHLs are not referred to in the conclusion! :wink:

The possibility of removal of MHLs was not within the scope of the study! :o :shock: Of course this is unsurprising given that the the research was done as part of CARRS and the funding came from Queensland Transport and Main Roads. :roll:


Of course what do I know. I only have read the research paper and read the actual data. :idea: :mrgreen:
human909
 
Posts: 4728
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 9:11 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:In order to bring Australian bike share usage closer to international norms (short of removing helmet legislation) the following measures should be considered:

The author admits helmets are the main issue! But addressing MHLs were never part of the SCOPE of the study.

The Author's own research SHOWS that it is mostly about helmets! But it also shows a number of other factors. That is what the article is about! I'll quote him again "Whilst no silver bullet exists in overcoming the challenges of operating PBSS within a mandatory helmet context..."

Given that the studies own research shows that helmets are the biggest factor yet concludes that "In order to increase the popularity of the CityCyclescheme, the results of this study suggest that a more accessible, spontaneous sign-up process is required, 24/7 opening hours, and greater incentives to sign up new members and casual users, as seeing people using CityCycle appears critical to further take up." Notice that MHLs are not referred to in the conclusion! :wink:

The possibility of removal of MHLs was not within the scope of the study! :o :shock: Of course this is unsurprising given that the the research was done as part of CARRS and the funding came from Queensland Transport and Main Roads. :roll:


Of course what do I know. I only have read the research paper and read the actual data. :idea: :mrgreen:


Okay, I now understand what the fuss is about: someone turned down a convenient opportunity to damn MHLs from the pulpit.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby DavidS » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:15 pm

elantra wrote: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.


Yep, it is a total cop out and a classic case of blaming the victim. The government introduced MHLs and now they can just wash their hands of cyclist safety by pointing to the MHLs and claiming they have done all they can.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:18 pm

high_tea wrote:No, I meant actual data, lack of which creates gaps that people attempt to fill with focus groups and worse


Well we've had nearly a generation for the safetycrats to provide immaculately structured, meticulously researched, repeatable and peer reviewed data supporting their then unproven contention that forcing one subgroup of road users to don an EPS chamberpot would provide miraculous public health benefit.

And they haven't.

Why?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25563
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:31 pm

high_tea wrote:Okay, I now understand what the fuss is about: someone turned down a convenient opportunity to damn MHLs from the pulpit.

Yes, I agree with you, that is exactly what the fuss is about. It is like blaming Fat Freddy for the smell and lack of space at the table when there is an elephant in the room. :wink:
Image


And because I didn't want the elephant to distract people from Mulger bill's I'll repost it.
Mulger bill wrote:Well we've had nearly a generation for the safetycrats to provide immaculately structured, meticulously researched, repeatable and peer reviewed data supporting their then unproven contention that forcing one subgroup of road users to don an EPS chamberpot would provide miraculous public health benefit.

And they haven't.

Why?
Last edited by human909 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4728
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 9:35 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
high_tea wrote:No, I meant actual data, lack of which creates gaps that people attempt to fill with focus groups and worse


Well we've had nearly a generation for the safetycrats to provide immaculately structured, meticulously researched, repeatable and peer reviewed data supporting their then unproven contention that forcing one subgroup of road users to don an EPS chamberpot would provide miraculous public health benefit.

And they haven't.

Why?


My personal opinion: because cycling policy barely registers at all with the government of the day. So yeah, I agree with your point.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:37 pm

Pssst!... I believe his point was that MHLs don't provide public health benefits. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 4728
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 9:49 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:Okay, I now understand what the fuss is about: someone turned down a convenient opportunity to damn MHLs from the pulpit.

Yes, I agree with you, that is exactly what the fuss is about. It is like blaming Fat Freddy for the smell and lack of space at the table when there is an elephant in the room. :wink:
Image


Cute. I too think there is an elephant in the room: the widely-held view that bicycles are a toy, not serious transport. Unfortunately, this can't be changed with any act of Parliament. It's a much harder problem than that. The attitude, and the closely-related view that cycling is inherently dangerous, grew up without MHLs. It's naive to think that MHL repeal will make it go away.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:12 pm

human909 wrote:Pssst!... I believe his point was that MHLs don't provide public health benefits. :wink:


Well, partially. There was also a bit of a rant against bent research such as that mentioned earlier, funded by that CARRS mob. Who in their right mind would believe studies showing tobacco smoke has little negative health effects once they found out the research was paid for by BAT.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25563
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:18 am

Biffidus wrote:
baabaa wrote:Helmet relief proving fatal TNN Nov 24, 2012, 06.32AM IST

Motorbikes are different... much faster and falling off is much more serious (I speak from experience).

i thought helmets were 'useless above a certain speed'? now they're more important in higher speed crashes. i'm not sure i understand.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8557
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 Kenzo » Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:49 am

jules21 wrote:
Biffidus wrote:
baabaa wrote:Helmet relief proving fatal TNN Nov 24, 2012, 06.32AM IST

Motorbikes are different... much faster and falling off is much more serious (I speak from experience).

i thought helmets were 'useless above a certain speed'? now they're more important in higher speed crashes. i'm not sure i understand.

You clearly do not understand - even though I believe you to be smart enough to have figured it out. If you have figured it out, then you are just trolling with your response.
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1679
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
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



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