Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

[il padrone]

Merge this with the MHL thread perhaps ??

The Mods are going to do it anyway.

[il padrone]

How much has scooter/skateboard riding reduced the numbers of child cyclists?

None. I see no connection, skateboards were there pre-1990. If anything skateboarding kicked on in the 90s probably due to the freedom from restriction compared to riding a bike.

How much has "kids don't roam free" affected the number of child cyclists?

The question should be "How much has helmet laws and parental paranoia prevented kids from roaming free?"

How much has the increased awareness of concussion increased the number of head injury related emergency dept attendance?

I see little evidence of this link. And your point ??

[Hamster]

Merge this with the MHL thread perhaps ??

The Mods are going to do it anyway.

Happy to see it merged or whatever else the mods feel is appropriate.

[Mulger bill]

What's a "Hetmet"?

Agree with IP. Thread move and merge in 5...4...3...

Shaun

[Mulger bill]

G'Day all.

Just a heads up that I've merged the quoted post and the ensuing replies into this thread to keep all things helmet together. You may notice some break in continuity.

Shaun

Those who are passionate about this subject might enjoy this -

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/03/11/do-mandatory-helmet-laws-deter-children-from-cycling/


I'm now off to make some popcorn.

[wurtulla wabbit]

Local skatepark in Alex headlands must have 50-100 kids on a busy weekend.
Not many wearing a lid and doing backflips, all manner of tricks on a concrete half pipe.
Would not want to get it wrong, however, haven't seen any carnage and I'll sit and watch sometimes from the pub.
MHL, pfft. Waste of manpower and sums up the nanny state perfectly.

[high_tea]

Cool. Now someone just needs to take it to the High Court and get the law overturned. Repugnancy or implied rights, I wouldn't presume to dictate. It can't fail! Have a rip at scool uniforms and facial tattooing laws while you're at it!/sarcasm

At least it's not that daft lifejacket meme. Small mercies.

I'm not sure what your point is here. We are discussing helmets.

Surely you as a cyclist would like to promote cycling rather than discourage it. Yet by supporting MHL you are supporting one of the biggest barriers to cycling.

Oh, I was discussing specious arguments about helmet laws. I suggesting, sarcastically, that a legal challenge to MHLs based on freedom of clothing was sure to succeed. For one of the usual reasons that this sort of thing succeeds.

Oh, and nice attempt to put words into my mouth. I remain on the fence re:MHLs because, in part, the arguments pro and con are so unconvincing. I'd bag out more lousy pro: arguments here in the echo chamber, but what's the use? Someone's generally beaten me to it.

[human909]

Oh, I was discussing specious arguments about helmet laws. I suggesting, sarcastically, that a legal challenge to MHLs based on freedom of clothing was sure to succeed. For one of the usual reasons that this sort of thing succeeds.

I share your scepticism on anything that has its roots in freedom succeeding in Australian courts. Basic freedom is not enshrined in our law and sadly it is now no longer enshrined in our society conciousness.

I remain on the fence re:MHLs because, in part, the arguments pro and con are so unconvincing. I'd bag out more lousy pro: arguments here in the echo chamber, but what's the use? Someone's generally beaten me to it.

Sorry that I've lost track of all the people who are sitting on the fence but seem to be arguing for the status quo. These 'lousy' arguments as you call them may not have convinced you but they continue to convince the rest of the world NOT to introduce MHL. The arguments for MHL have quite convincing "save the children" concepts....

[high_tea]

I remain on the fence re:MHLs because, in part, the arguments pro and con are so unconvincing. I'd bag out more lousy pro: arguments here in the echo chamber, but what's the use? Someone's generally beaten me to it.

Sorry that I've lost track of all the people who are sitting on the fence but seem to be arguing for the status quo. These 'lousy' arguments as you call them may not have convinced you but they continue to convince the rest of the world NOT to introduce MHL. The arguments for MHL have quite convincing "save the children" concepts....

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. That isn't arguing for the status quo, that's pointing out the lack of a well-argued alternative. Hey, guess what, that means not introducing MHLs in the rest of the world. It's a different story in Australia. So it goes.

The pro-MHL lobby have to do better than "helmet efficacy is well-settled" and, sorry, the anti-MHL lobby have to do better than "MHL efficacy is not well-settled". I don't mind "MHLs haven't done cycling participation any favours" but that requires a government to have this as a policy objective to do any good. That'd be just great, but things a lot more interesting than MHL repeal would flow from that. Not that I'm holding my breath.

[il padrone]

Fence sitters just get splinters in their bums

[bychosis]

How much has scooter/skateboard riding reduced the numbers of child cyclists?

None. I see no connection, skateboards were there pre-1990. If anything skateboarding kicked on in the 90s probably due to the freedom from restriction compared to riding a bike.

How much has "kids don't roam free" affected the number of child cyclists?

The question should be "How much has helmet laws and parental paranoia prevented kids from roaming free?"

How much has the increased awareness of concussion increased the number of head injury related emergency dept attendance?

I see little evidence of this link. And your point ??

When it was in the other thread my point was that depending on how you ask the question will afffect your statistics and the outcome of a study. These are all related questions when looking at the reduction in child cyclist injuries or participation.

I do believe that mandatory child helmets are a good thing, so are seatbelts.

[human909]

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.

[DentedHead]

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.

[human909]

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.

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!

[il padrone]

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.

[high_tea]

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.

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.

[wizdofaus]

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).

[Xplora]

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.

[wizdofaus]

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.

[human909]

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.

[wizdofaus]

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.

[il padrone]

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

[human909]

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.

[wizdofaus]

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.

[il padrone]

Government Apple-selling Permit #3015b required ??