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 simonn » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:53 pm

il padrone wrote:Speeding along nicely, until he hit the brick wall !!

a) It's the brick wall that killed him; speed doesn't matter,

OR

b) The high speed was the cause; brick walls aren't a hazard.


Kinda pointless argument really :roll:


Would he be killed if he hit the wall at 2km/h. Pointless argument?
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

by BNA » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:57 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:57 pm

2mh is not speeding thus the argument doesn't exist :wink:

In a situation where someone runs into a brick wall at high speed (10kmh over the speed limit)..... was it the speed that killed him, or the brick wall??

Personally I'd say speed was the cause, but you cannot deny the brick wall was a major factor.
Last edited by il padrone on Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20396
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby simonn » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:00 pm

il padrone wrote:2mh is not speeding thus the argument doesn't exist :wink:


It is not "speeding kills", but "speed kills" and 2km/h is a "speed" as in the "speed" part of the statement "speed kills".
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:03 pm

Arguing over marketing semantics here :roll: You well know the slogan is short-hand for exceeding the speed limit ie. high speed. Not 2kmh speeds.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20396
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:19 pm

Not necessarily. For instance, if you are slowly backing out of a parking spot at, say, 2km/h and hit someone, the chances are they will not die (I'd argue that they chances are low for any injury at all). However, if you hit someone at > 60km/h they probably will die.

Which part of speed not killing applies to the above examples?


wifes friends daughter was killed by gran reversing out driveway, dead, not alive, deceased. They don't speak to each other now, nothing to do with speed, HUMAN ERROR (both parent for letting small kid run around moving car and granny for not paying attention).
so, if she was going say, 1kph ? she would still be alive ?

silly comment. again, speed is a FACTOR, not cause.
clear ? :roll:
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

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

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:19 pm

il padrone wrote:Arguing over marketing semantics here :roll: You well know the slogan is short-hand for exceeding the speed limit ie. high speed. Not 2kmh speeds.


agreed.
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

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

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:55 pm

il padrone wrote:Yay, let's go man! Safe as houses. :P

Only if we're in a Volvo...

We know a Brit comedy sketch about that, don't we Billy :D
...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: 26998
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby wizdofaus » Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:27 pm

simonn wrote:
wizdofaus wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:.
Drifting over the limit is real easy when you do big klms and you should (preferrably) be watching/concentrating the road not a dial on the dash (which is more common due to cameras)!


That's a separate problem. I'd tend to agree that fining people for doing 5 k/h hour over in a 60 zone probably counterproductive (but if you look at the fatality rates for various impact speeds, I'm not so sure, and if you're doing 45 where there are schoolkids around, then you should have your license taken from you). Reinstate more reasonable buffers and I don't have a problem with governments using poor driving as an opportunity to collect revenue.


A speed limit is a maximum speed limit, not a minimum speed limit or the speed you should drive at. IOW, there already is a buffer.


But by convention the vast majority of drivers drive at that speed limit. You aren't going to change that in a hurry.
In virtually every other country in the world the idea of being fined for doing 105 in 100 zone would be laughable.
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

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

Postby simonn » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:07 pm

wurtulla wabbit wrote:Not necessarily. For instance, if you are slowly backing out of a parking spot at, say, 2km/h and hit someone, the chances are they will not die (I'd argue that they chances are low for any injury at all). However, if you hit someone at > 60km/h they probably will die.

Which part of speed not killing applies to the above examples?


wifes friends daughter was killed by gran reversing out driveway, dead, not alive, deceased. They don't speak to each other now, nothing to do with speed, HUMAN ERROR (both parent for letting small kid run around moving car and granny for not paying attention).
so, if she was going say, 1kph ? she would still be alive ?

silly comment. again, speed is a FACTOR, not cause.
clear ? :roll:


Hypotheticals and marketing slogans aside, are you really arguing that the graphic I linked to does not demonstrate that speed, once an accident has occurred, kills?
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby wilddemon » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:21 pm

il padrone wrote:Anything that gets kids out and active in their community is really good. More people on bikes, more often. This what will play a huge role in making our streets a safer environment. If this is with no helmets that is fine too. If there is a huge issue with drivers still ignoring safe road behaviour, enforce stricter road rules, that require greater care and responsibility on our suburban streets

And after your previous criticism of me it seems you have not been able to read my short post. Just to make it clear I'll spell it out for you then:

il padrone wrote:Anything that gets kids out and active in their community is really good..... ...... If this is with no helmets that is fine too.

.....means - No, I don't think it's a good idea, because there are other side effects.

il padrone wrote:More people on bikes, more often. This what will play a huge role in making our streets a safer environment.

....means - The direct safety benefits of more cyclists riding on our rides will quite likely outweigh any risks of increased head injuries. And this is before the health benefits to the individuals and the community from a more active lifestyle.

Also when I speak of helmets deterring kids from cycling I'm mainly referring to the teenage years. Yes the 7 year-olds are pretty much immune to the 'daggyness' factor - not so for 16 year olds

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Like I've said previously this is all pretty new to me. That doesn't mean I agree with you, I'm just starting to understand your philosophy.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby Xplora » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:59 pm

simonn wrote:
Hypotheticals and marketing slogans aside, are you really arguing that the graphic I linked to does not demonstrate that speed, once an accident has occurred, kills?

I think he's arguing that "speed kills" is a wimp out by the State. Autobahn was capable of handling speeds of 200kmh, and people did that totally OK. The issue will always be that you need drivers to be capable, and aware, for whatever speed they are travelling at. You can descend at the speed limit on a bike and be in very serious danger because it is hard to respond to some traffic situations and poor driver decisions at the speed limit. I've done the speed limit near my place and honestly, if I wasn't utterly focussed on my sprint to the lights, I wouldn't have the guts to do it. I know I won't sprint towards those lights unless the conditions are excellent now, because I reflected and the speed wasn't safe.
I was doing the posted speed LIMIT. The slogan speed kills implies that I will be safe if I am under the limit. But another 5kmh? Yes, the physics and biology involved in an accident do support a difference between 60 and 65, but that's not the message that is heard. "Breaking the law" is the message!

And this is why the MHL is absolute crap as well... the debate has to focus on the results of the law, the message that it sends to the public about cycling, and the responsibility of all road users to each other. Cyclists aren't falling off and dying in large numbers by themselves - they are involved in traffic accidents with foolish road users and that is a big chunk of the fatalites and casualties. :idea: The MHL implies that safety is the responsibility of the rider alone. That is the actual message - not the legal message, but the one that people understand when they read the paper. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet when they died being hit at 80kmh in an intersection - a ped is likely to die, a passenger in another car is likely to die, humans will die in 80kmh impacts on public roads, but the mention of the helmet tells the reader that the helmet magically stops their whole body from injury.

Semantics is the issue. The subtext is usually more important than the actual text.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7439
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:19 pm

Xplora wrote:
simonn wrote:
Hypotheticals and marketing slogans aside, are you really arguing that the graphic I linked to does not demonstrate that speed, once an accident has occurred, kills?

I think he's arguing that "speed kills" is a wimp out by the State. Autobahn was capable of handling speeds of 200kmh, and people did that totally OK. The issue will always be that you need drivers to be capable, and aware, for whatever speed they are travelling at. You can descend at the speed limit on a bike and be in very serious danger because it is hard to respond to some traffic situations and poor driver decisions at the speed limit. I've done the speed limit near my place and honestly, if I wasn't utterly focussed on my sprint to the lights, I wouldn't have the guts to do it. I know I won't sprint towards those lights unless the conditions are excellent now, because I reflected and the speed wasn't safe.
I was doing the posted speed LIMIT. The slogan speed kills implies that I will be safe if I am under the limit. But another 5kmh? Yes, the physics and biology involved in an accident do support a difference between 60 and 65, but that's not the message that is heard. "Breaking the law" is the message!

And this is why the MHL is absolute crap as well... the debate has to focus on the results of the law, the message that it sends to the public about cycling, and the responsibility of all road users to each other. Cyclists aren't falling off and dying in large numbers by themselves - they are involved in traffic accidents with foolish road users and that is a big chunk of the fatalites and casualties. :idea: The MHL implies that safety is the responsibility of the rider alone. That is the actual message - not the legal message, but the one that people understand when they read the paper. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet when they died being hit at 80kmh in an intersection - a ped is likely to die, a passenger in another car is likely to die, humans will die in 80kmh impacts on public roads, but the mention of the helmet tells the reader that the helmet magically stops their whole body from injury.

Semantics is the issue. The subtext is usually more important than the actual text.


At last ! A man who can think for himself And obviously hasn't been brainwashed by australian govt bull !

Sir, take a bow ! :wink:
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:55 pm

Xplora wrote:Cyclists aren't falling off and dying in large numbers by themselves - they are involved in traffic accidents with foolish road users and that is a big chunk of the fatalites and casualties.

Last year I think there were 8 or 9 cyclist deaths on the roads in Victoria. Back in the 80s it was up around 50-60.

But if you listened to the RACS that was all due to people falling off their bikes, at 10kmh on a bike path, falling 2 metres and cracking their unprotected skulls on the hard concrete. "We must do something about this tragedy!"

Never due to car drivers driving at 10-20kmh over the limit, having just doused down half a dozen schooners :roll: As was pretty normal for a heck of a lot of people after work. Way back then.
Last edited by il padrone on Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20396
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Xplora » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:14 pm

... and while road deaths are tragic, they are absolutely unavoidable across a population of 22 million people. Even peds fall over and die... we will always have a couple people each month die from riding bikes as they charge down hills or ride into trees. It does happen. But definitely not enough to force helmets.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7439
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby simonn » Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:52 am

Xplora wrote:
simonn wrote:
Hypotheticals and marketing slogans aside, are you really arguing that the graphic I linked to does not demonstrate that speed, once an accident has occurred, kills?


I think he's arguing that "speed kills" is a wimp out by the State.



He was also directly arguing against my point.

I sort of agree with the above. I would not say it is a "wimp out" though. The problem is that people, in general, appear to be stupid so you need a catchy slogan and also threaten them the might of the law, because it is about protecting other people - I do not really care if someone chooses to speed (or whatever) and kills just themselves. If people, in general, were clever and logical they would understand why speeding is a bad thing - and that it is not about them - and not do it, therefore no laws or catchy slogans would be necessary, especially for the sake of their personal entertainment or saving a few seconds or maybe minutes here and there. Clearly this is not the case.

Some emphasis that speed does actually kill in PSAs would probably be a good thing as, at least IME, quite a few people just do not seem to get it.

the mention of the helmet tells the reader that the helmet magically stops their whole body from injury.


Only anti-MHL proponents seem to think this is the case.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby outnabike » Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:12 am

[quote="the mention of the helmet tells the reader that the helmet magically stops their whole body from injury.[/quote]

Only anti-MHL proponents seem to think this is the case.[/quote]

Ahhhh yes, the theory of being correct is easily used to divide and conquer the cyclist community. How simplistic it is to express spurious inflammatory statements.
Just imply complete stupidity and you have won a point. :D
User avatar
outnabike
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

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

Postby wizdofaus » Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:32 am

simonn wrote:Only anti-MHL proponents seem to think this is the case.


Only people in Australia and NZ would ever see a cyclist not wearing a helmet and think they were doing something wrong, and therefore likely to be at fault.

At least we have the magpies on our side (hint: they don't swoop if you're not wearing a helmet. It's pretty clear it's MHL they object to).
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

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

Postby wilddemon » Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:55 am

Xplora wrote:
simonn wrote:Hypotheticals and marketing slogans aside, are you really arguing that the graphic I linked to does not demonstrate that speed, once an accident has occurred, kills?

I think he's arguing that "speed kills" is a wimp out by the State. Autobahn was capable of handling speeds of 200kmh, and people did that totally OK.

snip

Agree with Simonn re intended understanding. Speed kills is related to once an accident occurs. The anti MHL brigade still seem to think they will never have an accident which makes perfect sense, apart from il padrone. How's your head btw? (actually heard that people are debating whether to regulate football players' game appearances once they have had a concussion or two because of a degenerative disease that you can acquire from concussions - yikes! Some players claim that they cant remember whole chunks of their career.)

And comparison to autobahn at 200kmh is a totally different kettle of fish. There are no pedestrians on the autobahn. The greatest RELATIVE velocity is going to be 200kmh, that is if you stop. The same as if you are doing 100 on our open roads, and pass another car doing 100 in the opposite direction. Again, not really relevant comparing us to Europe where the infrastructure is totally different. Probably more plausible to compare us to the moon: poor cycling infrastructure, no road rage towards cyclists and no MHL. Flame suit on :)

edit: smiley face added
Last edited by wilddemon on Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby simonn » Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:56 am

wizdofaus wrote:
simonn wrote:Only anti-MHL proponents seem to think this is the case.


Only people in Australia and NZ would ever see a cyclist not wearing a helmet and think they were doing something wrong, and therefore likely to be at fault.

At least we have the magpies on our side (hint: they don't swoop if you're not wearing a helmet. It's pretty clear it's MHL they object to).


Thinking someone is doing something wrong by not wearing a helmet is different to claiming that people think helmets act as some kind of magical item of invulnerability.

Image
Last edited by simonn on Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby simonn » Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:58 am

outnabike wrote:Ahhhh yes, the theory of being correct is easily used to divide and conquer the cyclist community. How simplistic it is to express spurious inflammatory statements.
Just imply complete stupidity and you have won a point. :D


I can't actually understand what your point is, but it is only anti-MHL proponents that bring this up. Nobody else seems to think that a helmet does more than possibly reduce the chance or severity of a head injury as the result of an accident.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby simonn » Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:02 am

wilddemon wrote:And comparison to autobahn at 200kmh is a totally different kettle of fish.


Germany actually has a higher rate of road deaths/km than (even) Australia.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Xplora » Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:12 am

Go back to my statement about subtext. What lesson do we learn about Xplora from this thread? H909? Paddy? Humans read in between the lines. We speak in between them as well. You deny the basic flaw in the comment about the 80kmh accident. There was no issue about a helmet, the CAR was the cause of death. Helmets would have to be mandated for anyone near a road to justify a comment about helmet use when a person is t boned at 80kmh. It implies fault by the rider. Implication means subtext. A further implication could be that the rider just should not be on the road at all, regardless of their otherwise flawless obedience to the law. MHL has failed because we don't have better casualty rates or higher numbers of riders. The subtext does not say you can be confident on the bike now. It says danger.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7439
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby wizdofaus » Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:48 am

simonn wrote:Thinking someone is doing something wrong by not wearing a helmet is different to claiming that people think helmets act as some kind of magical item of invulnerability.


Is it? At any rate, my response was a half-serious rejoinder, nothing more. Honestly don't think it's worth getting worked up about MHL for the most part. I'd be happy to see a serious push to get some exemptions made though (e.g. for bike-share schemes).
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

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

Postby wilddemon » Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:02 am

Xplora wrote:Go back to my statement about subtext. What lesson do we learn about Xplora from this thread? H909? Paddy?

You like to use be thoroughly cryptic and use long words when short ones will do. If your arguments weren't so paper thin it wouldn't be necessary.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby simonn » Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:20 am

wilddemon wrote:
Xplora wrote:Go back to my statement about subtext. What lesson do we learn about Xplora from this thread? H909? Paddy?

You like to use be thoroughly cryptic and use long words when short ones will do. If your arguments weren't so paper thin it wouldn't be necessary.


:lol: +1
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Torpedo 7 Cycling Express
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