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 wurtulla wabbit » Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:09 pm

Just ride the bike, MHL , pffft. Good luck to any cop (like the last monkey suited lollipop licking revenue collector) trying to give me a ticket for a bike lid.

Two words he'd hear..............


People need to take a stand and not just do as they're told with this crap.
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

by BNA » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:03 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:03 pm

il padrone wrote:The minister is now, belatedly, acknowledging that the helmet-law is a problem, but is unwilling to take the sensible, most-obvious way to resolve it. Free helmets for every citizen would still not save the Melbourne Bikeshare. It's a dog with MHLs.


OTOH the minister appears to be treating improving cycling uptake as a policy objective. That's good news.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:06 pm

Summernight wrote:Does that mean I can get a free helmet to use as a spare for my normal bike now? :P


Judging from the number of yellow CityCycle helmets I see attached to patently-non-CItyCycle bikes around Brisbane, that question has been asked before.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:04 pm

wurtulla wabbit wrote:People need to take a stand and not just do as they're told with this crap.


The problem is that when one person take a stand they get fined and nothing comes of it. (unless you have a law degree and lots of time)

We need a concerted push from bike advocacy groups but at the moment some are actively supporting MHLs. :evil:
human909
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:32 pm

high_tea wrote:OTOH the minister appears to be treating improving cycling uptake as a policy objective. That's good news.

You don't live in Victoria do you ??

This government is madly trying to save pennies. The Bikeshare is costing them quite a few, so they want to make it pay..... or at least come closer. As for the "improvement of cycling as a policy objective" - they could start by putting some dollars into the bicycle facilities budget.

Any :roll: as it is currently sitting at zero :evil: !!!$21 million to zero in just one term - now that's a record to be proud of :roll:
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18160
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby jcjordan » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:36 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.

There comes a time were some freedoms need to be controlled to protect the majority.

I see many of the arguments used on this forum justifying the removal of MHL based on on science but persevered need for freedoms.

I could uses these same arguments to justify my 'right' to carry a concealed firearm.

Based on the fact that i have a right to defend myself, my family and my property.

We dont in Australia because we have a belief that mass carrage of weapons is not good for the majority.

You can even use statistics to prove the value of this argument.

Take Washington State as an example. 1976 the put in laws to control to the carrage of weapons and crimes against the individual did rise significantly over the 15 years that they were in place. Once they were removed and caragge was reinstated those same crimes dropped in half.
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby wizdofaus » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:39 am

Summernight wrote:Agreed, but my belief is if people start seeing oodles of tourists and normal anti MHL-cyclists riding around on the bikes without helmets (if the exemption came in) and possibly in their suits and work clothes etc. then they'd start thinking 'it isn't so dangerous' and then the rate would increase and the perception cycle (pun intended) that it is safe would continue and participation would increase.


Only up to a point though. The last few times I've ridden around the CBD at peak hour it's amazing anybody uses a bicycle at all. It's almost impossible to get from any one point to another safely and smoothly with a few small exceptions. Aside from Swanston St, none of the CBD roads have adequate cycling facilities. I know they're working on Latrobe St, but it's not enough - *every* road in the CBD should be safe for cycling on, which includes bike lanes with some sort of raised physical barrier (even if it's just textured ribbing) separating them from traffic. Nothing less is going to make the major of commuters feel that bicycling is safe (and for us already committed cyclists, without physically separated lanes, getting through CBD traffic is just a pain).
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 » Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:26 am

jcjordan wrote:There comes a time were some freedoms need to be controlled to protect the majority.

I completely agree. But how does this relate to MHLs? How does my choice not to wear a helmet harm others. How does forcing me to wear a helmet protect the majority?

I see many of the arguments used on this forum justifying the removal of MHL based on on science but persevered need for freedoms.

jcjordan wrote:I could uses these same arguments to justify my 'right' to carry a concealed firearm.

Personal firearm ownership clearly and directly inflicts harm onto others. This is not at all similar.

Please don't turn this thread into a gun debate.
human909
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:21 am

human909 wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:People need to take a stand and not just do as they're told with this crap.


The problem is that when one person take a stand they get fined and nothing comes of it. (unless you have a law degree and lots of time)

We need a concerted push from bike advocacy groups but at the moment some are actively supporting MHLs. :evil:


Not so, it has already happened to me and the family.
4 of us out cycling on path from Caloundra to seafront, they stopped on a ped crossing, blocked traffic and lectured u s.
I laughed at them and pointed out all the infringements they had done whilst talking crap and they left with a " get a helmet on" comment.
I said no and walked on !

If they bust ya, make a big hoohaa about it to media !!
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 high_tea » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:28 am

human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:There comes a time were some freedoms need to be controlled to protect the majority.

I completely agree. But how does this relate to MHLs? How does my choice not to wear a helmet harm others. How does forcing me to wear a helmet protect the majority?

I see many of the arguments used on this forum justifying the removal of MHL based on on science but persevered need for freedoms.

jcjordan wrote:I could uses these same arguments to justify my 'right' to carry a concealed firearm.

Personal firearm ownership clearly and directly inflicts harm onto others. This is not at all similar.

Please don't turn this thread into a gun debate.

Oh, where's the fun in that? It's not the least relevant digression, nor even close to the wierdest in this rambling thread. And y'know, you make sweeping statements about freedom, people explore the implications. So it goes.

PS I have no interest in a gun debate either. Only a nebulous debate about some nebulous freedom isn't much better.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:31 am

Do you think it is so wrong to desire a freedom that the almost ALL the rest of the world has but we don't? A personal freedom that does no harm to others and does not intrude on other people's freedoms?
human909
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:34 am

il padrone wrote:
high_tea wrote:OTOH the minister appears to be treating improving cycling uptake as a policy objective. That's good news.

You don't live in Victoria do you ??

This government is madly trying to save pennies. The Bikeshare is costing them quite a few, so they want to make it pay..... or at least come closer. As for the "improvement of cycling as a policy objective" - they could start by putting some dollars into the bicycle facilities budget.

Any :roll: as it is currently sitting at zero :evil: !!!$21 million to zero in just one term - now that's a record to be proud of :roll:

No, Queensland. Brisbane council now spends as much on cycling facilities as mowing. What can I say, I've gotten good at seeing little glimmers of hope. I prefer lip service to apathy, just not by much.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby jcjordan » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:36 am

human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:There comes a time were some freedoms need to be controlled to protect the majority.

I completely agree. But how does this relate to MHLs? How does my choice not to wear a helmet harm others. How does forcing me to wear a helmet protect the majority?

I see many of the arguments used on this forum justifying the removal of MHL based on on science but persevered need for freedoms.

jcjordan wrote:I could uses these same arguments to justify my 'right' to carry a concealed firearm.

Personal firearm ownership clearly and directly inflicts harm onto others. This is not at all similar.

Please don't turn this thread into a gun debate.

I am not trying to turn this into a gun debate but mearly reflecting that both use emotion and belief as the basis for large parts of the argument and that in many cases this detracts from the factual elements.

As you point out you dont see how not wearing a helmet effects others. Others have pointed to data that shows that helmets can possibly reduce the level of injuries. If this was proven to be correct it would mean that MHL do effect the majority as it would potentially reduce Medicare costs.
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby jcjordan » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:40 am

human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:There comes a time were some freedoms need to be controlled to protect the majority.

I completely agree. But how does this relate to MHLs? How does my choice not to wear a helmet harm others. How does forcing me to wear a helmet protect the majority?

I see many of the arguments used on this forum justifying the removal of MHL based on on science but persevered need for freedoms.

jcjordan wrote:I could uses these same arguments to justify my 'right' to carry a concealed firearm.

Personal firearm ownership clearly and directly inflicts harm onto others. This is not at all similar.

Please don't turn this thread into a gun debate.

Plus you can not relate personal ownership and use of weapons directly inflicts harm others any more then driving does or the ownership of cricket bats.
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:50 am

jcjordan wrote:As you point out you dont see how not wearing a helmet effects others. Others have pointed to data that shows that helmets can possibly reduce the level of injuries. If this was proven to be correct it would mean that MHL do effect the majority as it would potentially reduce Medicare costs.

This is a total furphy that gets raised in this discussion from time to time. By this standard the ordinary motor vehicle should be a banned device - they cause HUGE increases to Medicare costs :roll:
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18160
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby jcjordan » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:32 am

il padrone wrote:
jcjordan wrote:As you point out you dont see how not wearing a helmet effects others. Others have pointed to data that shows that helmets can possibly reduce the level of injuries. If this was proven to be correct it would mean that MHL do effect the majority as it would potentially reduce Medicare costs.

This is a total furphy that gets raised in this discussion from time to time. By this standard the ordinary motor vehicle should be a banned device - they cause HUGE increases to Medicare costs :roll:

But they are not because the cost and benifits have been considered.

This same cost benefit analysis has not been undertaken with the MHL's due to the emmotional beliefs about freedom have always gotten in the way. Much like the gun debate in the US.
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:53 am

jcjordan wrote:
il padrone wrote:This is a total furphy that gets raised in this discussion from time to time. By this standard the ordinary motor vehicle should be a banned device - they cause HUGE increases to Medicare costs :roll:

But they are not because the cost and benifits have been considered.

This same cost benefit analysis has not been undertaken with the MHL's due to the emmotional beliefs about freedom have always gotten in the way. Much like the gun debate in the US.

:? :?: :?: :?:

You lost me there I'm afraid. You think costs and benefits have been considered in people's choice/freedom to use the motor vehicle ??? I've got to disagree with you very strongly there. Individuals (and society in general) do not take full account of the costs of the rampant use of motor vehicles. Pollution, congestion, CO2 emissions, road deaths and disability, sedentary lifestyle, consumption of scarce resources, damage to urban lifestyle, etc, etc. In economics it is the classic case study of negative externalities - costs that are not born by those who produce/cause them.

Re. bike helmets and MHL, the benefits have all been measured very thoroughly by our medico-safety campaigners, it's simply that no-one has taken full account of the costs to cycle-use and society resulting from MHL.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18160
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby jet-ski » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:17 am

JCjordan - When you do a cost-benefit analysis you need to get a handle on the costs. As a society we have a problem with that still.

On the cost of cars to society, most people I find just dont 'get' it.

Afterall, the reason why we all pay out money each year to register our cars is to insure all of the other road users we endanger by using our cars. Third Party Injury insurance is compulsory for a reason. Some people think costs stop there. Living near busy roads has been proven to reduce baby weights in kids in Perth and asthma rates too (there are published studies on this, I will look for them if anyone is interested). You could draw a longer bow of car use = sedentary lifestyle = more lifestyle diseases. Then there are the costs of congestion in terms of time and productivity which each capital city is just starting to get a handle on now.

There are many more costs. You can bet they haven't all been considered by policymakers.
User avatar
jet-ski
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: Perth WA

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

Postby human909 » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:21 am

jcjordan wrote:As you point out you dont see how not wearing a helmet effects others. Others have pointed to data that shows that helmets can possibly reduce the level of injuries. If this was proven to be correct it would mean that MHL do effect the majority as it would potentially reduce Medicare costs.


I'm sorry but that argument is absurd!

What are the benefits of rock fishing? Should that be banned, that is a highly dangerous sport. What about mountain biking? Rock climbing? Skiing? Smoking? Homosexual sex? We don't ban things simply because they POTENTIALLY increase Medicare costs!

The argument that personal should all be subjected to a country wide cost-benefit analysis is positively scary. :shock:


But such analysis has been done and time and time again it shows that MHL are a negative influence to health and society!
human909
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:41 am

And that the health benefits of more cycling outweighs the costs of injuries and deaths in cyclists by a factor of 20 times :idea:
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18160
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby wizdofaus » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:43 am

jet-ski wrote:You could draw a longer bow of car use = sedentary lifestyle = more lifestyle diseases.


I don't think that's a longer bow at all - a slightly longer bow would be to suggest that cars are what make obesity possible. There are very very few people indeed who would be considered severely overweight that don't depend on their car to get around. If they were required to use at least partially active modes of transport (at least 10 minutes walking a day) it's damn unlikely they would ever have become so overweight in the first place: if nothing else, physical activity makes you very aware of your body weight and is far more likely to prompt you to keep it in check, even if the actual calories you burn by walking 10 minutes a day aren't particularly significant.
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 wizdofaus » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:50 am

human909 wrote:I'm sorry but that argument is absurd!

What are the benefits of rock fishing? Should that be banned, that is a highly dangerous sport. What about mountain biking? Rock climbing? Skiing? Smoking? Homosexual sex? We don't ban things simply because they POTENTIALLY increase Medicare costs!


No, but we do (where feasible) introduce regulation that tries to build in some of those external costs into the activities in question. And we do often ban activities, like fishing in known highly dangerous locations, where the risks of death are much higher than individuals are likely to sensibly judge for themselves. Even with sexual activities - I don't have a particular problem with the NSW law, for example, that makes it an offence to engage in unprotected sex with someone without revealing first that you are HIV positive.
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 Howzat » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:17 am

human909 wrote:The argument that personal should all be subjected to a country wide cost-benefit analysis is positively scary. :shock:

Jeepers, mate. We do this kind of thing all the time. And it works out fine. It's what societal curbs on smoking, asbestos, and dynamite are about. It's why we have laws on traffic lights, seatbelts, speeding, driving drunk and headlights. We even have laws to insist you wear pants in public.

It's perfectly routine to come up with a balance between private risk and public interest. Unless you want to live in a cave in the hills, it's necessary to do so.

Together we've said that as a cyclist, you need to take a minimum level of personal responsibility. You have a minimum duty of care to yourself and others. Namely; working brakes, lights at night, and a helmet on your noggin. Then off you go. You can even ride on the roads with neither license for yourself nor registration for your bike.

If you find that postively scary, I'd direct you to reflect on rule #5. :D
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:26 am

Howzat wrote:Together we've said that as a cyclist, you need to take a minimum level of personal responsibility. You have a minimum duty of care to yourself and others. Namely; working brakes, lights at night, and a helmet on your noggin. Then off you go. You can even ride on the roads with neither license for yourself nor registration for your bike.

All of the above is universally accepted in almost every other developed nation around the world.






Except for the requirement for a helmet. :idea:
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18160
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby wizdofaus » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:30 am

wizdofaus wrote:
jet-ski wrote:You could draw a longer bow of car use = sedentary lifestyle = more lifestyle diseases.


I don't think that's a longer bow at all - a slightly longer bow would be to suggest that cars are what make obesity possible.


And slightly longer again is that car use indirectly causes this sort of thing. And let's not even mention all the oil spills...

Cars could *potentially* have benefits that outweigh the costs, but only if we restricted their use to journeys where there just were no good alternatives.
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

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