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 human909 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:10 am

high_tea wrote:The pro-MHL arguments are, by and large, complete rubbish. The anti-MHL arguments are, by and large, no better. I'm not convinced either way. The only logical response is to do nothing.

Please don't abuse logic in that way. Logic in no way implies this!

It should be quite clear to anybody in our society that the default course of social legislation is freedom not restriction.
human909
 
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

by BNA » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:24 am

BNA
 

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

Postby DentedHead » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:24 am

human909 wrote:It should be quite clear to anybody in our society that the default course of social legislation should be freedom not restriction.


Fixt.

Sadly, this is not the case in practice.


Dent.
DentedHead
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:23 pm

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

Postby human909 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:43 am

DentedHead wrote:
human909 wrote:It should be quite clear to anybody in our society that the default course of social legislation should be freedom not restriction.


Fixt.

Sadly, this is not the case in practice.


Dent.

I share your cynicism. :wink:

However the truth is that it is still freedom. If Apple invents the Ipad then we don't wait until the government gives the the ok before it can be sold. If Levis makes a new type of pants then we don't need government approval to wear them. The same applies to protective head wear.

Unfortunately the government has been convinced by the arguments for MHL and thus we now have MHL. However if high_tea was sincere in his conviction that neither argument was convincing then he should be against MHL!
human909
 
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:51 am

human909 wrote:However the truth is that it is still freedom. If Apple invents the Ipad then we don't wait until the government gives the the ok before it can be sold. If Levis makes a new type of pants then we don't need government approval to wear them. The same applies to protective head wear.

Unfortunately the government has been convinced by the arguments for MHL and thus we now have MHL. However if high_tea was sincere in his conviction that neither argument was convincing then he should be against MHL!

Before the mandatory legislation came in, people already were wearing helmets, by their own free choice. In Victoria helmet-wearing rates were up to something like 70%.

No government approval was required for those 70% of cyclists to wear helmets - they chose to, aka freedom.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20046
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:09 am

human909 wrote:
DentedHead wrote:
human909 wrote:It should be quite clear to anybody in our society that the default course of social legislation should be freedom not restriction.


Fixt.

Sadly, this is not the case in practice.
Dent.

I share your cynicism. :wink:

However the truth is that it is still freedom. If Apple invents the Ipad then we don't wait until the government gives the the ok before it can be sold. If Levis makes a new type of pants then we don't need government approval to wear them. The same applies to protective head wear.

Unfortunately the government has been convinced by the arguments for MHL and thus we now have MHL. However if high_tea was sincere in his conviction that neither argument was convincing then he should be against MHL!

Considering the situation from scratch, sure. We're not. Get over it.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby wizdofaus » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:07 am

human909 wrote:If Apple invents the Ipad then we don't wait until the government gives the the ok before it can be sold.


I think you'll find there's quite a bit of regulation over the manufacture and retail of electronic devices, especially wrt how much electromagnetic radiation they can transmit.

A more accurate analogy would be that the government doesn't mandate the use of a computer stand because research shows that conventional laptop usage causes shoulder and neck pain (which is completely true).
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 Xplora » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:15 pm

wizdofaus wrote:
human909 wrote:If Apple invents the Ipad then we don't wait until the government gives the the ok before it can be sold.


I think you'll find there's quite a bit of regulation over the manufacture and retail of electronic devices, especially wrt how much electromagnetic radiation they can transmit.

A more accurate analogy would be that the government doesn't mandate the use of a computer stand because research shows that conventional laptop usage causes shoulder and neck pain (which is completely true).

Wiz, that's a completely pointless comparison. There are clear and present issues with high levels of electromagnetic radiation, and guidelines - which do not infringe on an ability to innovate and bring a product to market - are not the same as the helmet law. 909's example was that the baseline is a free decision. Apple doesn't need to be told about radiation laws because they will be destroyed as a business if their products are dangerous. Cyclists are not guaranteed to get sick from their bike, whereas a mobile will.

Nitpicking doesn't improve the quality of discourse.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7280
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby wizdofaus » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:12 pm

Xplora wrote:
wizdofaus wrote:
human909 wrote:If Apple invents the Ipad then we don't wait until the government gives the the ok before it can be sold.


I think you'll find there's quite a bit of regulation over the manufacture and retail of electronic devices, especially wrt how much electromagnetic radiation they can transmit.

A more accurate analogy would be that the government doesn't mandate the use of a computer stand because research shows that conventional laptop usage causes shoulder and neck pain (which is completely true).

Wiz, that's a completely pointless comparison. There are clear and present issues with high levels of electromagnetic radiation, and guidelines - which do not infringe on an ability to innovate and bring a product to market <snip>


Plenty of serious economic libertarian types would say otherwise, and to a degree they're probably right - while Apple may not the best example, I've no doubt that generic-brand laptop computers could be produced somewhat more cheaply if the manufacturers didn't have to bother about such regulations.

Apple doesn't need to be told about radiation laws because they will be destroyed as a business if their products are dangerous. Cyclists are not guaranteed to get sick from their bike, whereas a mobile will.


For a start most consumers can't tell if the radiation has any dangerous element to it (and it's as much about interfering with other devices and official communications channels as it is any personal health risks), and as it is plenty of customers are aware that electronic devices can give off radiation that can potentially affect their health, but use them anyway.

I just don't think your point about freedom/no regulation being the 'default position' makes much sense. There's plenty of good reasons to phase out MHL (or at least phase out the strict enforcement of it) without bringing up questionable philosophical positions.
Last edited by wizdofaus on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 human909 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:37 pm

I don't see how individual freedom is now a questionable philosophical position. I would however admit my iPhone example may not be the best. If the issue is muddied it is because high_tea is deliberately doing so by bring into question the notion that freedom is not the default.

Freedom is most definitely the default in this country. We create laws that give the basis of what you CANNOT do. Not what you CAN do. While some legislation may be written in a form of what IS allowed the fact remains that in the absence of law disallowing an action or behaviour then that behaviour is legal.
human909
 
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby wizdofaus » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:05 pm

human909 wrote:I don't see how individual freedom is now a questionable philosophical position.


Your position came across to me that the default assumption for any human activity, commercial or otherwise should be that it's unregulated, even in a modern social democracy.
That's what I was disputing.

The reality is that as humans figure out more and more weird and wonderful ways to convert the natural world into technology and then use said technology for various behaviour for which our bodies are clearly not evolved, we're perhaps unfortunately going to need more and more regulation to cover such behaviours. I don't see it changing any time soon, and for all the examples there are of obvious over-regulation (or counter-productive regulation), for the most part I'm rather grateful to know it exists and is enforced.
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 il padrone » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:11 pm

I can sell my apples in the market without needing to get a government permit that they're safe.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20046
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:32 pm

I think this conversation is now well and truly side tracked. In the meantime let turn back to statistics because after all they tell us everything. :wink:
Image
human909
 
Posts: 5872
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby wizdofaus » Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:38 pm

il padrone wrote:I can sell my apples in the market without needing to get a government permit that they're safe.


I'm not sure if that's true everywhere in Australia, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to serve them as a prepared "ready-to-eat" product without some sort of food health & safety certification.

There would certainly also be regulations over what chemicals you can use on them, and (perhaps absurdly) even more if you wanted to claim they were grown without using any.
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 il padrone » Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:03 pm

Government Apple-selling Permit #3015b required ??

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20046
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:01 pm

human909 wrote:I don't see how individual freedom is now a questionable philosophical position. I would however admit my iPhone example may not be the best. If the issue is muddied it is because high_tea is deliberately doing so by bring into question the notion that freedom is not the default.


No. I simply stated that we are not in the default situation with respect to MHLs. Like it or not, repealing them is not going to happen absent some cogent argument in favour of repealing the law, which is quite distinct from an argument against enacting them in the first place. Whether that should be so is an interesting question, but that's how it is. My views on freedom (or anyone else's, for that matter) don't come into it.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:19 pm

Australians' attitudes to the "hazards" of removing the MHL brings to mind memories of 'Logan's Run'.


"We've been outside! There's another world outside! We've seen it!"


Bizarre as it may seem, you don't die instantly on taking that foam helmet off :roll:

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20046
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 Mar 12, 2013 9:53 pm

wizdofaus wrote:....obvious over-regulation (or counter-productive regulation), ....

When the regulation causes more negatives than positives, then you will be fighting a losing battle in the arena of ideas. Helmet laws for cyclists are not conclusively good for the population of cyclists :idea:

You have a lot of easier things to change like banning cigs and beers if you want to improve society. Don't ignore the elephants in the room while you claim triumph over the mice. Justify why MHL isn't good for peds as well. After all, it's apparently a minor inconvenience that will save your life 8)
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7280
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby simonn » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:26 am

Xplora wrote:Apple doesn't need to be told about radiation laws because they will be destroyed as a business if their products are dangerous.


Someone's preferred sports drink is randian flavoured.

Like Union Carbide? How many infant deaths are acceptable?

I find your distrust in organizations you actually have a say, albeit a small one, i.e. government, but faith in the market doing the right thing quite weird.

Just to make that clear, that is "faith in the market doing the right thing". Yes, the market will always correct it self, but we might not like what the correction involves so it might be better to avoid it through regulation etc.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby outnabike » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:31 am

il padrone wrote:Australians' attitudes to the "hazards" of removing the MHL brings to mind memories of 'Logan's Run'.


"We've been outside! There's another world outside! We've seen it!"


Bizarre as it may seem, you don't die instantly on taking that foam helmet off :roll:




Hi il padrone,You have the best graphics on tap no doubt, they add life to the forum.

I find apart from any thing else re helmets, the problem of carrying the thing around when shopping. Used to be with the old plastic lump, I left it on the bars, so old and ugly, no one wanted to steal it.(sort of suited me actually).
Now that I bought a really expensive $40-00 one from anaconda I have to lug it around in one of those green shopping bags, the whole "protect the helmet thing is a pain".
Isn't there some sort of hard head test that you can pass and that would qualify a bloke from not needing a helmet? Tried telling the doc that the helmet gives me a head ache but got laughed out the door......
Just seems like a lot of hard heads in this forum.....I thought I might get some tips.
User avatar
outnabike
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

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

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:44 am

Re. your helmet and security - when I leave the bike I lock it. Sometimes I take the helmet with me; if it's going to be a nuisance I'll run the lock through the helmet straps (and my helmet cost a good bit more than $40). No-one is going to pinch it as they'd need to cut the straps, and then it's pretty useless to them.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20046
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Kenzo » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:01 pm

The person likely to steal a helmet is probably not going to do up the straps anyway.
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1680
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 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:06 pm

My view, and experience, in that regard is such a person is:
a) probably not going to bother stealing a helmet, they'll just ride their bike without a lid; and
b) unlikely to be able to distinguish a good helmet from a cheapie.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20046
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Xplora » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:41 pm

simonn wrote: How many infant deaths are acceptable?

What about pedestrians? Pedestrian deaths are acceptable? :idea: This is precisely my argument - regulation seems to be acceptable and fine, unless it discriminates against cyclists :?:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7280
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby simonn » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:32 pm

Xplora wrote:
simonn wrote: How many infant deaths are acceptable?

What about pedestrians? Pedestrian deaths are acceptable? :idea: This is precisely my argument - regulation seems to be acceptable and fine, unless it discriminates against cyclists :?:


I don't understand how this relates to your point:

Xplora wrote:Apple doesn't need to be told about radiation laws because they will be destroyed as a business if their products are dangerous.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:26 pm

A Dutch viewpoint on the safety value of helmets and what really matters to boost safety:

David Hembrow wrote:So, where do helmets and fluorescent clothing fit in ? For some individuals, wearing such a thing improves their own feeling of safety to the level that they will ride. However, these items actually do little to improve actual safety and can have a negative effect on the subjective safety of other people due to making cycling look dangerous. Where cycling has a high degree of subjective safety, as it does here, no-one wears these safety aids. Dutch cyclists are safer without them than cyclists elsewhere are with them.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20046
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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