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 KenGS » Wed May 08, 2013 10:32 pm

newie wrote:
Don't confuse injury reduction with safety.[/quote]
????
I think that statement ends my participation in this thread for the forseeable future.[/quote]
Why?
Whilst a helmet can reduce the severity of head injury in a collision it does nothing to prevent the collision.
Speaking for myself, I equate my safety to the risk of a collision as I would rather not have the collision in the first place.
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1444
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

by BNA » Wed May 08, 2013 10:40 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby high_tea » Wed May 08, 2013 10:40 pm

KenGS wrote:
high_tea wrote:I don't know whether compliance is a problem. That's kind of why I was asking the question. But that was just an example. The real question was whether MHLs can be made more effective.

If you mean in terms of reducing road trauma - YOU BETCHA!
1/ Make cyclists wear motorbike helmets. You would see an even greater reduction in head injuries among cyclists
2/ Apply MHLs to all motor vehicle occupants. This would make a bigger dent in road trauma than a measly number of cyclists. http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/ ... tsb160.pdf
3/ Apply MHLs to pedestrians.
4/ Introduce random helmet checking to ensure AS compliance, correct fitting etc... with an increase in penalties for non compliance
Should we start a petition?


Sure, petition away. I don't much mind the idea of better helmets(which is really what (1) is about). Helmets in cars, fine. It'll piss the RAC(whatever) off, so it can't be all bad, can it? I don't much care for (3); it is an actual infringement on an actual basic freedom and that doesn't sit well with me. (4), sure, I guess it could work.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby DavidS » Wed May 08, 2013 10:59 pm

The zob wrote:Yes. I believe that cycling in some situations for some people is dangerous.


Fine, I agree, so let these people make the choice as to when is appropriate for wearing a helmet. I commute on my bike and would not wear a helmet commuting. If I was bunch riding in a large group I would wear one. Unfortunately I do not have these choices.

The zob wrote:And anything that can be done to mitigate that risk is good. I'm not going to shove that opinion down anyone's throat (hey....any OH&S reps here? Safety comittee members? Maybe they can give us their opinion on whether or not wearing helmets on cycles would be mandatory if cycling was a workplace activity? Like a Grand tour for example :wink: :lol: ).....but I will take that attitude in my own house, with my own children. And I'd expect others to raise their children as they see fit. But don't be telling me that I'm doing something wrong, because it's none of your business :wink:


You may not be shoving your opinion down anyone's throat but the pro MHL lobby is. They are shoving their opinion on to my head because they have managed to have it legally mandated that I must wear a helmet on a bicycle. My opinion does not matter, only the pro MHL lobby's opinion matters because their opinion is now the law and I will get fined if I don't act in accordance with their opinion because their opinion is now law.

The zob wrote:
Would you want your kids undertaking an activity which is so dangerous they are legally required to wear a helmet?


As I've said already....yes. Why not? Just because you have to wear a helmet doesn't mean you're gonna die. :lol: Sheesh....bit dramatic this attitude innit? "oooo....you have to wear a helmet!!!!! This is soooooooo dangerous..." :lol: C'mon man.....give it up. That sort of argument lets you down :wink:


This is the very point, are you just missing it on purpose or do you really not see this? I have had arguments with countless people about this. They are of the opinion that cycling is too dangerous and don't cycle and don't want their kids to cycle. Why do they think it is so dangerous? Because the mandating of wearing helmets tells them it must be very dangerous. Only very dangerous activities require laws to ensure people wear head protection, cycling has laws requiring head protection therefore it must be very dangerous. Bit dramatic? I agree, but it is the MHLs which lead to this attitude.

Ken Ho, your posts are a breath of fresh air (fresh hair through my limited follicles maybe). The very problem with MHLs is that the risk factor on bikes is very low. One of the problems with bicycle injury and death stats is that they are derived from such low numbers. It's hard to see a trend in cycling fatality rates when we start from such low numbers as random variability swamps trends.

Meanwhile none of the MHL advocates can give me a decent answer as to why car occupants, who suffer over 50% of head injuries in Australia, are not forced to wear a helmet. Surely if we do then they should too?

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Ken Ho » Thu May 09, 2013 12:14 am

high_tea wrote: (3); it is an actual infringement on an actual basic freedom and that doesn't sit well .


OK, now I'm really confused. Making peds wear a helmet is an infringement of basic rights, but making cyclists wear them is not somehow ?
I think, that despite your alleged non-partisan position, that you have just made a strong statement against MHL's.

Is it worth me adding that over the last three years, I have locummed in about 19 locations in Queensland, from Ipswich to Mornington Island, including most of the big provincial cities and numerous towns through Central Qld and the Central West and everywhere I go, it's alcohol and football that cause head injuries, not bicycles. Oh, and old people slipping over in their own homes. We need to mandate helmets for everyone over 70 to be worn at alll times. I predict an easy win for the study that looks at the efficacy of that MHL.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

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

Postby The zob » Thu May 09, 2013 12:52 am

Ken Ho wrote:I'm sorry about the death of your brother. I had a similar grief, though different cause, with my young son.
However, without knowing the exact nature of his injury, it is not possible to comment on wheterh a helmet would actually have made a difference.


No sweat...it happens, and you're quite correct re the helmet. I'm pretty sure I didn't present it as being of any consequence. Still feel better about wearing one, and having my children wear one :D

This is the very point, are you just missing it on purpose or do you really not see this? I have had arguments with countless people about this. They are of the opinion that cycling is too dangerous and don't cycle and don't want their kids to cycle. Why do they think it is so dangerous? Because the mandating of wearing helmets tells them it must be very dangerous.


I'm not missing the point. Those people believe that because you have to wear a helmet then it's just too dangerous. Fair dinkum....they really based a decision on the mandatory wearing of helmets? And nothing else? Are you sure? Because if you are, then those people you have had arguments with are pretty stupid aye? :lol: Really...to make such a statement makes them look like dead set idiots :lol: . Word of advice....I wouldn't be associating with anybody that bases those sorts of decisions on that sort of evidence :wink:

"I'm not letting my kids ride a bike cos it's too dangerous"

"How do you know?"

"They have to wear a helmet. Only dangerous things need helmets"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't talk to people like that. Don't associate with them, and hope that they don't breed, because they're the sort to perpetuate and expand the nanny state :wink:
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

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

Postby citywomble » Thu May 09, 2013 1:50 am

Why is it high_tea that I often find myself wanting to address what you say.

I agree with Ken when he pointed out that if you think MHLs for pedestrians is an infringement of civil liberties then so it is for cyclists too - and it's hard to see why you wouldn't too.

Earlier you said:
And helmet-wearing has become normalised, at least to some extent. How much of the postulated effect on participation has gone away because of this and other factors, I wonder?


I suggest very little. I would agree that helmet wearing has become normalised by current cyclists - because it has been mandated, but only with the few who have come to accept it as a precondition of riding and have become so used to it they cannot envisage riding without. i didn't want to bring Lycra into it but helmets and Lycra tend to become a badge of office for a true cyclist.

Cyclists who do not wear Lycra are far more likely to not wear a helmet. in WA You see a significant number of who POBSOs that are not helmet wearers. Take away the MHLs and I suspect you would see many more POBSOs, who are not currently cycling and that we need to get cycling if we are to increase participation and hence safety in numbers.

An interesting thought, those POBSOs that don't wear helmets are the law breakers and therefore risk takers, so you would expect to see them in more accidents as a result. So, studies in MHL jurisdictions are very likely to see a higher risk profile for not helmet wearers. Take away the MHLs and you will get many more law abiding people taking to bikes and, consequently, many more risk averse cyclists who are far less likely to have accidents. What a surprise, now the results would not show as much (if any) difference with not wearing a helmet. Darwinian evolution?

Picking up on that theme, bY way of evidence I would draw your attention to the Darwin factor which has triggered an evolution into a cycling city. Here we have a jurisdiction that has already (done the unthinkable) removed The MHL for cycling on footpaths, shared paths and designated areas. What has happened:

More head injuries? NO
More cyclists? YES.
Mode-share for cycling is head and shoulders above anywhere else in Australia at about 6%! Furthermore because the majority are POBSOs they are not cycling faster than the 20 kph speed limit on all footpaths and shared paths so there are not the issues with bikes riding on paths. Go fast, go road and then wear a helmet.
And this is in a place where the city is probably the least conducive to cycling. So, what are your answers to that?

We can debate for ever on will it, won't it? We can hide behind no jurisdiction will ever be brave enough to remove MHLs.
But we don't need to. They did in Darwin and, did the roof fall in? No.

They didn't take away MHLs entirely, but they did for certain areas and it worked. We have the evidence so lets take this forward and state by state/territory reduce or eliminate MHLS.

Back to your quote above, helmet wearing is far from 'normalised' for the vast majority who (in part because of helmets) see cycling as a freak show for fanatics. Before you blow off at me this is not my view but very self evidently the view of many who react to cyclists in a way we see all to often in the forum topics, their driving and in response to cycling articles etc. In fact helmets become the means by which the cyclist is perceived to be different and not normal and yet another reason why many see cycling as NOT normal.

Rant over.
citywomble
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

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

Postby VRE » Thu May 09, 2013 7:10 am

Well said, citywomble, and I agree with everything you said :) . I also lament the fact that our successive governments steadfastly refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence from all those other countries without MHLs that the absence of MHLs (a) promotes cycling and (b) doesn't cause catastrophes :roll: . Even when all our bike share schemes are financially unviable and are continually being subsidised by our state governments just to stay operating, our state governments refuse to see reason. It's a farce.
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

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

Postby high_tea » Thu May 09, 2013 9:52 am

Ken Ho wrote:
high_tea wrote: (3); it is an actual infringement on an actual basic freedom and that doesn't sit well .


OK, now I'm really confused. Making peds wear a helmet is an infringement of basic rights, but making cyclists wear them is not somehow ?
I think, that despite your alleged non-partisan position, that you have just made a strong statement against MHL's.


To my way of thinking, making peds wear helmets is a far bigger deal, because:

1. Walking around is a fundamental expression of a basic human right, about as fundamental as it gets.
2. Any added barrier to something so fundamental is a bad thing and need very careful justification. The threshold is much, much higher for laws about walking than laws about cycling.
3. Compare cycling and walking. Walking needs no special equipment (I guess clothing, but that's enforced by social mores than de jure laws). Cycling, by contrast needs special equipment, ie a bicycle by definition. One more piece of special equipment - a helmet - is less of an imposition than going from no special equipment to some special equipment.

For these reasons, I'm much less accepting of laws relating to pedestrians than laws relating to cyclists. I think pedestrian conduct is over-regulated as it is. Pedestrian helmet laws are going to need extraordinary justification to get me to accept them. I haven't seen anyone seriously try in this thread. It's just thrown in as another stalking-horse for cyclist MHL repeal.

Is it worth me adding that over the last three years, I have locummed in about 19 locations in Queensland, from Ipswich to Mornington Island, including most of the big provincial cities and numerous towns through Central Qld and the Central West and everywhere I go, it's alcohol and football that cause head injuries, not bicycles. Oh, and old people slipping over in their own homes. We need to mandate helmets for everyone over 70 to be worn at alll times. I predict an easy win for the study that looks at the efficacy of that MHL.


Agreed, there are bigger problems. That argues for legislating against the said bigger problems (or doing something about them, anyway), not repealing MHLs.

I hope I've made it clear I'm opposed to laws about pedestrians wearing helmets in public absent some extraordinary justification. My views on similar laws relating to private conduct are left as an exercise.
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 May 09, 2013 10:07 am

citywomble wrote:Why is it high_tea that I often find myself wanting to address what you say.

I agree with Ken when he pointed out that if you think MHLs for pedestrians is an infringement of civil liberties then so it is for cyclists too - and it's hard to see why you wouldn't too.

Earlier you said:
And helmet-wearing has become normalised, at least to some extent. How much of the postulated effect on participation has gone away because of this and other factors, I wonder?


I suggest very little. I would agree that helmet wearing has become normalised by current cyclists - because it has been mandated, but only with the few who have come to accept it as a precondition of riding and have become so used to it they cannot envisage riding without. i didn't want to bring Lycra into it but helmets and Lycra tend to become a badge of office for a true cyclist.

Cyclists who do not wear Lycra are far more likely to not wear a helmet. in WA You see a significant number of who POBSOs that are not helmet wearers. Take away the MHLs and I suspect you would see many more POBSOs, who are not currently cycling and that we need to get cycling if we are to increase participation and hence safety in numbers.

An interesting thought, those POBSOs that don't wear helmets are the law breakers and therefore risk takers, so you would expect to see them in more accidents as a result. So, studies in MHL jurisdictions are very likely to see a higher risk profile for not helmet wearers. Take away the MHLs and you will get many more law abiding people taking to bikes and, consequently, many more risk averse cyclists who are far less likely to have accidents. What a surprise, now the results would not show as much (if any) difference with not wearing a helmet. Darwinian evolution?



Goodness me, it sounds like significant levels of non-compliance. Among people more likely to crash, you say? Seems like there could be room to improve helmet uptake in this group. Maybe it would help, considering that helmet efficacy is well settled.


Picking up on that theme, bY way of evidence I would draw your attention to the Darwin factor which has triggered an evolution into a cycling city. Here we have a jurisdiction that has already (done the unthinkable) removed The MHL for cycling on footpaths, shared paths and designated areas. What has happened:

More head injuries? NO
More cyclists? YES.
Mode-share for cycling is head and shoulders above anywhere else in Australia at about 6%! Furthermore because the majority are POBSOs they are not cycling faster than the 20 kph speed limit on all footpaths and shared paths so there are not the issues with bikes riding on paths. Go fast, go road and then wear a helmet.
And this is in a place where the city is probably the least conducive to cycling. So, what are your answers to that?

We can debate for ever on will it, won't it? We can hide behind no jurisdiction will ever be brave enough to remove MHLs.
But we don't need to. They did in Darwin and, did the roof fall in? No.

They didn't take away MHLs entirely, but they did for certain areas and it worked. We have the evidence so lets take this forward and state by state/territory reduce or eliminate MHLS.


I have to admit that the data I've seen on the Darwin experience is a little patchy, but okay, I'll accept that it supports your conclusions for the sake of argument. If you want to argue that the Darwin experience suggests that some exceptions to the general rule is a good thing, fair enough. It has some interesting corollaries (like you'd need to legalise riding on the footpath for it to make much sense. Fine with me, but that's not currently the case in all jurisdictions). I have my own pet exemption: kids in trailers. Making kids in trailers wear helmets is several kinds of stupid. But both of those points are about improving MHLs, not repealing them.
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 May 09, 2013 10:21 am

high_tea wrote:I have to admit that the data I've seen on the Darwin experience is a little patchy, but okay, I'll accept that it supports your conclusions for the sake of argument. If you want to argue that the Darwin experience suggests that some exceptions to the general rule is a good thing, fair enough. It has some interesting corollaries (like you'd need to legalise riding on the footpath for it to make much sense. Fine with me, but that's not currently the case in all jurisdictions). I have my own pet exemption: kids in trailers. Making kids in trailers wear helmets is several kinds of stupid. But both of those points are about improving MHLs, not repealing them.


Why is it you accept that Darwin provides experience but not the rest of the world?
human909
 
Posts: 4762
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby g-boaf » Thu May 09, 2013 11:28 am

You have to wear a helmet - even if your name is Sir Richard and you are extremely wealthy:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/ ... 6637900805

He'd be a great advocate for cycling in Australia. Generally likeable - very well known and with plenty of influence. And likely to not be influenced by the usual special interest groups.
User avatar
g-boaf
 
Posts: 3924
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

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

Postby high_tea » Thu May 09, 2013 11:31 am

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:I have to admit that the data I've seen on the Darwin experience is a little patchy, but okay, I'll accept that it supports your conclusions for the sake of argument. If you want to argue that the Darwin experience suggests that some exceptions to the general rule is a good thing, fair enough. It has some interesting corollaries (like you'd need to legalise riding on the footpath for it to make much sense. Fine with me, but that's not currently the case in all jurisdictions). I have my own pet exemption: kids in trailers. Making kids in trailers wear helmets is several kinds of stupid. But both of those points are about improving MHLs, not repealing them.


Why is it you accept that Darwin provides experience but not the rest of the world?


Because Darwin has tried having MHLs and then relaxing them. The rest of the world hasn't. I also suspect that the legal and cultural environment in Darwin is closer to that in the rest of Australia than, say, Copenhagen.
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 May 09, 2013 11:43 am

high_tea wrote:Because Darwin has tried having MHLs and then relaxing them. The rest of the world hasn't. I also suspect that the legal and cultural environment in Darwin is closer to that in the rest of Australia than, say, Copenhagen.

What does that have to do with REQUIRING helmets to protect our heads?

Are you now suggesting that MHL are not appropriate for the rest of the world but ARE uniquely appropriate to Australia?
human909
 
Posts: 4762
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby wilddemon » Thu May 09, 2013 12:07 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:Because Darwin has tried having MHLs and then relaxing them. The rest of the world hasn't. I also suspect that the legal and cultural environment in Darwin is closer to that in the rest of Australia than, say, Copenhagen.

What does that have to do with REQUIRING helmets to protect our heads?

Are you now suggesting that MHL are not appropriate for the rest of the world but ARE uniquely appropriate to Australia?


Do you really think that this is what high_tea is suggesting? Why ask these ridiculous questions when the answer is obvious. You may think you are painting someone as a fool but you are splashing paint all over yourself.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby human909 » Thu May 09, 2013 12:13 pm

wilddemon wrote:Do you really think that this is what high_tea is suggesting?

No. I am not sure. That is why I am asking.

I am genuinely not sure if high-tea (or you for that matter) thinks MHLs are appropriate for Australia alone or the cycling world in general.
human909
 
Posts: 4762
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Thu May 09, 2013 12:14 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:Because Darwin has tried having MHLs and then relaxing them. The rest of the world hasn't. I also suspect that the legal and cultural environment in Darwin is closer to that in the rest of Australia than, say, Copenhagen.

What does that have to do with REQUIRING helmets to protect our heads?

Are you now suggesting that MHL are not appropriate for the rest of the world but ARE uniquely appropriate to Australia?


Nah. I'm saying that the claims about the effects of MHL repeal are speculative. It's never been tried. It's clearly different to never having MHLs in the first place. The Darwin experience is the nearest thing, and it involves relaxation, not repeal.

I don't know if it's the only example of MHL relaxation, but it's fairly unusual, no? I freely admit I don't know enough about it to have a decided view, but OK, if it works in Darwin, why not elsewhere in Australia? There are some caveats, e.g. the footpath laws and the relatively low population density, but is it an interesting and worthwhile discussion to have? I certainly think so.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby The zob » Thu May 09, 2013 1:03 pm

Out of interest....has anybody raised the Worksafe etc question? I found no reference t it when I read through, but it's easy to miss in 230 pages :lol:

By Worksafe I mean the workplace authority in your stae (Worksafe is Victoria). If I had employees that commuted to work they'd either wear a helmet or get another job. Not my ideal situaton, but I'll not take responsibility for someone else. Not with Worksafe.
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

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

Postby human909 » Thu May 09, 2013 1:15 pm

The zob wrote:Out of interest....has anybody raised the Worksafe etc question? I found no reference t it when I read through, but it's easy to miss in 230 pages :lol:

By Worksafe I mean the workplace authority in your stae (Worksafe is Victoria). If I had employees that commuted to work they'd either wear a helmet or get another job. Not my ideal situaton, but I'll not take responsibility for someone else. Not with Worksafe.


So now you think you can dictate how your employees get to work? You have got to be kidding?

This only show how insane Australian attitudes are to cycling. In Amsterdam 30% of the workforce ride bikes to work and 99.9% without helmets!

The zob wrote:Like I said....I'm pro choice 8) You want to take the chance that the helmet's not gonna help, go nuts.

It seems your pro choice attitude didn't last very long. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4762
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Thu May 09, 2013 2:38 pm

The worksafe angle is a fantastic one that lines up with my comments about helmets for car passengers, buses, peds... these groups are at risk of head injuries because the human head is not good enough to resist vehicular impacts either inside or outside the vehicle. Cyclists are not uniquely exposed to these risks, as any examination of accident statistics will demonstrate. I will let other people draw conclusions about the sense of helmets for peds. I'm OK with your opinions and decisions. What I take offence to is that you believe cyclists should be discriminated against in this thought process. We are all vulnerable. But we are not all free.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5806
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby Howzat » Thu May 09, 2013 3:32 pm

Xplora wrote: But we are not all free.

Oh fer petes sake, mate - we're not auditioning for the final scene in Braveheart here. :D

One advantage for repealing MHLs is that you might help save lives of people on organ-donation wait lists.

From the article:
A recent study shows that organ donation among motor vehicle accident victims rose by about one-third after Florida repealed its motorcycle helmet law.
...one organ donor killed in a motorcycle wreck can save the lives of up to eight people with his or her organs.

...Coincidentally, the primary argument for repealing motorbike helmet laws there was "freedom".
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

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

Postby The zob » Thu May 09, 2013 3:55 pm

human909 wrote:
The zob wrote:Like I said....I'm pro choice 8) You want to take the chance that the helmet's not gonna help, go nuts.

It seems your pro choice attitude didn't last very long. :roll:


Now now, cheap shots are so.....cheap :lol:

So now you think you can dictate how your employees get to work? You have got to be kidding?

This only show how insane Australian attitudes are to cycling. In Amsterdam 30% of the workforce ride bikes to work and 99.9% without helmets!


You're not an employer, are you? :wink:

Lookee here....I stand by what I said re the choice. But there could be legalities involved here. And those legalities could easily cost me my business, my house....everything I and my wife have worked for. IF what I suspect is true. That's why the question :D

As an employer, I'm responsible for providing a safe workplace for the blokes. It's not that simplistic, but most of you would be pretty familiar with how it works. That "workplace responsibilty" can extend further....to include trips too and from work as well. This is why for instance that I won't allow alchohol consumption on my work premises.....if there is an alchohol related incident on the way home, I can be held accountable to a degree. This HAS happened :wink:

Something to ponder.....
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

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

Postby Xplora » Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Zob, fair enough call because employers really are screwed by a very litigious and blameshifting judicial system. But you aren't talking about baseline rights anymore, and it's not a MHL issue afaik.

howzat, you're talking about motorcyclists. Riding at much faster speeds than the pro peleton can manage unless they are rolling down a BIG hill. And yes, freedom is important. You'd notice an enormous increase in Iraqi organ donation after Saddam and the Yanks started arguing over who owned the toys in the sandpit as well...
Xplora
 
Posts: 5806
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby MichaelB » Thu May 09, 2013 4:37 pm

Holy Batman ! :shock:

240 pages and people still arguing. :roll:

1st world problems :D
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6824
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

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

Postby Ken Ho » Thu May 09, 2013 4:49 pm

MichaelB wrote:Holy Batman ! :shock:

240 pages and people still arguing. :roll:

1st world problems :D


Well, it's the world we live in, so it's makes sense that we try and shape it.
Th only reason this thread is so long, is because it's the only place where MHL discussion is allowed.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

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

Postby human909 » Thu May 09, 2013 5:00 pm

The zob wrote:Lookee here....I stand by what I said re the choice. But there could be legalities involved here. And those legalities could easily cost me my business, my house....everything I and my wife have worked for. IF what I suspect is true. That's why the question :D

As an employer, I'm responsible for providing a safe workplace for the blokes. It's not that simplistic, but most of you would be pretty familiar with how it works. That "workplace responsibilty" can extend further....to include trips too and from work as well. This is why for instance that I won't allow alchohol consumption on my work premises.....if there is an alchohol related incident on the way home, I can be held accountable to a degree. This HAS happened :wink:


But what does that have to do with dictating to your employees what they wear on the way to work? Should you ban them from riding motorbikes as well. They are far more dangerous than riding a bicycle, helmet or no helmet. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4762
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rustychisel



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit