Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
That is all. Guns and dynamite... if MHL defenders are trying to bring up dynamite as a parallel to the bicycle helmet as a responsible curb on freedom, you cannot begin to believe how stupid that sounds. WOW.
Guns and dynamite - the heart of the free world
The Comancheros and Hell's Angels run their society that way after all - all good!!!
The great cities of the world have done this to some degree or another. New York, Tokyo, Paris, London all have great public transport and all are working to improve the position of bikes and reduce the access for cars. Most of the Netherlands discourages car use for short trips and encourages cycling use. Less than 1% of the cyclists wear helmets and they are significantly safer.
Cars bring great benefits and great costs. The external costs are worst in high population cities. The personal costs of using a car is ever present and has certainly been a contributing factor to obesity.
Getting a bit OT but there was this from RN a couple of weeks ago.
That is congestion resulting from the excessive use of motor vehicles BTW, not bicycles.
That figure sounds like a underestimate. Though it all depends on what assumptions are being made and how it is being measured.
One such way to calculate a figure is to simple sum each individual's private willingness to pay to reduce or remove congestion. Well it can be easily shown that private individuals are ALREADY paying $3 billion a year just to get even a fraction reduction in congestion. For the $5million or so drivers that face congestion each day I don't believe that $10 a day is an obscene figure to completely remove congestion. Some people already pay as much anyway to merely reduce congestion. Transport companies would largely pay much higher amounts. In short on back of the envelope calculations I would suggest that a better estimate figure would probably 2-5x higher.
The public and private saving of more cycling are massive.
I think it's a trivial imposition. I find it surprising that people get worked up about the human-rights implications, but there's no right or wrong in matters of taste.
My real complaint is twofold. First, there are enough real problems - non-trivial impositions on important freedoms - for it to astonish me that this rates a mention. Secondly, it amazes me that there is any view of "freedom" that could found an objection to bicycle helmet laws in particular. I can understand how a cyclist would find the law particularly inconvenient, but I can't make the leap from "inconvenient" to "unrighteous", not without conflating convenience and freedom.
Unrighteous because its unfounded.
Same as highway speed cameras.
Sorry to beat the same old drum, but if the inconvenience/freedom imposition is so trivial........ why did authorities not mandate the helmet for car drivers.... for pedestrians on the street ???
Tbh, I rarely wear a helmet, unless I'm riding to some far unknown place. Locally I never do. Helmets make me sweat more than I should, as well I reckon obstruct hearing. All the wind noise is emphasised through the vents,etc and I have a harder time hearing cars that roll up behind. But then again, I mainly ride on the right lane/shoulder so that I can see the cars coming.
How likely is it that NSW cops would fine for this? Once in a while I ride past cop cars, but never have they done anything. And what's the price of a fine? I can't really find an exact value.
You're playing with the well known "bicycle-invisibility factor". But every now and then the cloak blows off in the wind...... and then you're up for a double-dose fine
In Victoria fines for cycling offenses went up a few years back - the helmet fine is $146; you could be up for $260 and upwards for multiple offenses.
I know what you are saying , but one ticket will cost more than the helmet and then you still have to get a helmet. I do see many folk with out helmets, but when riding on the roads I also see many police cars. Then I am glad to have it on.
I have seen riders stopped but cannot say the out come . Always seems to be a lot of head pointing and furious writing by the constabulary though.
Hardly relevant if cost isn't a reason why somebody isn't wearing a helmet.
Yeah, but QV is throwing the baby out with the bath-water - right-side riding, maybe footpaths too...... wonder how many red lights he runs? Maybe fear and insecurity, inexperience or just blatant rule disobedience. Doesn't matter that much if the Police ping him and multiple offenses are going to hurt the hip pocket nerve.
Just as long as he's aware of the repercussions.
Only footpaths if its a busy road with no bike lane. Red I stop, unless there are no cars at all. I would say the only reason I ride on the right is cause of insecurity and fear of some driver passing behind too close, etc if I'm on the left. And if I do see cops, I usually get off and walk, or wait for them to head off.
I do have a helmet, but don't like wearing it. Maybe it's a cheapo helmet and that's the reason why.
If I ever do cop a fine, then that will prob be the time when I wear the helmet 100% of the time on a bike. Hope they don't catch all the safety requirements on the bike that aren't there. No reflectors other than on the pedals, no lights(but I rarely ride at night), and no bell. Otherwise it's a 100% safe bike.
I am not sure all cops know about this BS law anyway.....
Right-side running is 'salmoning'. I might not be very disapproving of helmet-less riding but such salmoning is downright dangerous to other cyclists and pedestrians. I'd recommend you do not do it if you consider yourself a responsible member of society.
What other cyclists? Where I ride, there are no other cyclists. Plus this is around my local area, so I know the roads and how empty they are.
Any roads that I don't know, then I'd be on the left shoulder and riding much slower than normal.
Whatever you say. If I see a salmoning rider I am sorely tempted to do something I may regret.
you may know the area, but you can't predict the future.....
knowing the roads means nothing...
I agree with il padrone on this one.
Which is why discouraging cycling by mandating the wearing of helmets is so so stupid.
It's not just the inconvenience of wearing the helmet. I just have to live with that since I don't want to pay a fine. It is the impression that cycling is very dangerous, so dangerous that we have to wear helmets for our own good, that is really discouraging. I had an argument a few months ago with someone who was shocked I thought riding without a helmet was fine (me and my 18yo daughter had just gone for a ride on the Bellarine Peninsula sans helmets). She said it was far too dangerous and she certainly wouldn't let her, admittedly younger, children ride without a helmet (I rode at their age without a helmet, no-one had them then). I had another comment recently that cycling was far too dangerous to cycle without a helmet. These arguments and this perception of the relative safety/dangerousness of cycling just did not exist before the stupid MHLs. The harm done by promoting the perceived danger of riding a bike will take decades to repair.
I have had frequent comments along the lines of "Gosh you're so brave! I could never do that. There's just too much traffic to ride a bike". Even wearing helmets it is regarded as just too dangerous. This attitude was not such a common statement in the 70s & 80s.
Wearing a helmet doesn't make cycling any more safe. Sure it'll protect your head a little if you fall or something, but it doesn't reduce the chances of you falling. Maybe some people reckon that they be perfectly fine as long as they wear a helmet.
One of my friends always tells me to wear a helmet. I guess I should listen, but she is someone who would never ride without a helmet.
(emphasis in original)
It's hard enough to figure out why a law was passed sometimes, so speculating on why some hypothetical law wasn't passed seems like an unproductive exercise. Besides, and I've pointed this out before, this is as much an argument for more regulation as MHL repeal.
There is a caveat to this, though: walking around is a fundamental expression of a basic human right. I'm extremely leery of any law that interferes with that. The bar is higher for regulating pedestrians that regulating cyclists, and rightly so. I don't know why helmets aren't mandated for pedestrians, but the fact that they aren't doesn't bother me in the slightest; it indicates neither prejudice nor inconsistency.
As for motorists: mandate away, you'll not hear a peep out of me.
I would prefer they didn't.
It won't improve their field of vision and may make some drivers feel more impervious to injury in their metal cage, encouraging more inconsiderate driving behaviour.
I thought salmoning referred to any attempt to ride along a street in the opposite direction of the traffic flow, and I've never quite understood why some writers (e.g. bikesnobnyc) so readily condemn it. There's several one-way streets around Carlton/Fitzroy that I use to ride the "other way", usually because it is the safest route. I thought I'd read some research suggesting counter-flow bicycle lanes proved to very safe and effective when they'd be implemented in a few cities, though a quick Google isn't showing up much other than a few videos. There's even one in North Melbourne (OConnel St), though apparently it's been known to confuse drivers.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users