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 » Fri May 10, 2013 3:14 pm

Xplora wrote:all a bit hypothetical and fighty under the current situation because an employer would have a case to stand by if someone started to ride home without a helmet or without a seatbelt on and they did nothing to prevent that from happening. Contributory negligence, no different to booze. Doesn't make it right... but that's OHS laws for you lol

I am arguing that this is not the case. Well not anymore than an employee driving a old corolla home without airbags. Of course we can hypothetically consider anything, and nobody can say for certain as laws change and evolve.

An employers duty of care would not normally extend to a employee riding his bike home. Nor is the employer otherwise liable outside of work hours. Now I can't say for certain, nor can even experts in the field of workplace laws. A few decades ago if you injured yourself while having sex nobody would have thought that was a workplace compensation issue. :lol:
(But all this has successfully distracted the discussion into legalese debate concerning a hypothetical.)
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

by BNA » Fri May 10, 2013 3:43 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby The zob » Fri May 10, 2013 3:43 pm

human909 wrote:I wasn't the one trying to apply work safety a discussion on MHL for bicycles. Nor do I think they have much to do with it. I was simply responding to you comment. But now it seems you have retracted it. :roll:

The zob wrote:I think you made the statement that I want to fire people based on their method of getting to work. That's not correct.

Yet earlier you said...
The zob wrote: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 if somebody chose as their method of getting to work cycling without a helmet....

Anyway I'm done with debating workplace laws. I absolutely agree that Workplace laws have overstretched and are ridiculously insane. I've had no disagreements there. But that isn't a discussion for this thread.


It has nothing to do with how they get to work. It's a question of whether they were obeying the law doing so and whether or not I knew about it. No different to a motorcyclist who rides off without a helmet. Sheesh :lol: :lol:

And yes....it's hypothetical. A fact that I've been at pains to bring your attention too. :lol:

Now I can't say for certain, nor can even experts in the field of workplace laws. A few decades ago if you injured yourself while having sex nobody would have thought that was a workplace compensation issue


Thank you. You seem to be understanding what I'm getting at....the constantly evolving nature of OH&S laws and the need for society to hold somebody....anybody.....responsible. 5 years ago would anyone have expected to see a disabilty care system that is "custom fit to the individual" at any cost? Why would any government commit billions of dollars in an open ended promise to support every single disabled person in the country repeal a law that protects our young from head injuries? (Before you go off.....remember that you and others that are anti MHL's are in the minority. People who are "Meh" about it all...like me.....don't count here. And it's all about perception :wink: ). You can claim that this isn't a discussion for this thread all you like, but that won't change reality :wink:

ooo ooo btw......You're not expecting me to take responsibility for someone else's actions are you?
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 Ross » Sat May 11, 2013 8:17 am

Regarding the compo while having sex thing...at first glance this does seem ridiculous but when you look into it more (no pun intended) it does seem fair and makes sense. I can't remember the exact scenario but I believe it was a (female?) employee that had to go interstate for a conference or similar type event and then in the evening met with some other non-employee and had sex in the hotel room and while doing so the light fitting fell off the wall and hit the employee on the head. So the employee was required to be in a hotel room because they were attending the conference during the day. They were going about doing normal lawful things that consenting adults do, similar to sleeping or playing cards or having a shower or a million other things. So because this was essentially a work function, or that their work required them to stay overnight, they were covered by workers comp. If they weren't at the conference they wouldn't need to be in the hotel, they would be at home, and therefore responsible for their own actions, nothing to do with the employer.

I do think that the hotel should of been made to pay at least some of the cost back to the workers comp company, after all it was a light fitting in their hotel room that was unsafe and fell off the wall. Maybe the hotel could then try and make a claim against their maintenance company (presuming they have a company that does this and not just a handyman employed by the them) as they should of noticed the light fitting was loose. Maybe too the employee contributed to the incident by bumping the bed against the wall while they were having sex.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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

Postby Ross » Sat May 11, 2013 8:22 am

Getting back on topic now...I had a quick look and couldn't see this posted anywhere - http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/05/ar ... lmet-laws/

Richard Branson was let off with a warning recently by Adelaide police for riding his bike without a helmet.

My personal view, even though I'm pro HL, is that it was a fair decision to let him off with a warning because he claimed he didn't know that Australia had MHL.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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

Postby Ken Ho » Sat May 11, 2013 9:00 am

Amazing.
Branson, a visionary, daredevil, truly an extraordinary human being, put in his place and treated like a retarded child by two of our finest, dullards chosen specifically for their lack of imagination.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1256
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 jcjordan » Sat May 11, 2013 7:26 pm

Ken Ho wrote:Amazing.
Branson, a visionary, daredevil, truly an extraordinary human being, put in his place and treated like a retarded child by two of our finest, dullards chosen specifically for their lack of imagination.

Gee mate I hope the next time you need the police they are not around to do there job.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby wilddemon » Sat May 11, 2013 8:10 pm

Yeah I thought a pretty ordinary summary of the plod too. But I suppose there are people that think the same of ED staff so what goes around...
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby Ken Ho » Sun May 12, 2013 7:26 am

jcjordan wrote:
Ken Ho wrote:Amazing.
Branson, a visionary, daredevil, truly an extraordinary human being, put in his place and treated like a retarded child by two of our finest, dullards chosen specifically for their lack of imagination.

Gee mate I hope the next time you need the police they are not around to do there job.


Don't get me started on that one.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1256
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 CatCanRide » Sun May 12, 2013 11:30 am

I don't think the cops had a choice of giving Richard Branson a fine for riding without a helmet. Could you imagine the outrage if he had just been warned by them? Cops go easy on rich well known identity but fine the little guys?
If he had been some unknown average Joe Bloe tourist they probably just would have given a warning and let him go.
Cops do a really difficult horrible job often in very confronting circumstances. I wouldn't want to be a copper the job is too bloody tough. I hate to think what our society would be like if we didn't have the coppers out there keeping an eye on things.
User avatar
CatCanRide
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:21 pm

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

Postby high_tea » Sun May 12, 2013 2:06 pm

Ken Ho wrote:Amazing.
Branson, a visionary, daredevil, truly an extraordinary human being, put in his place and treated like a retarded child by two of our finest, dullards chosen specifically for their lack of imagination.

Hey, why not a visionary daredevil exception to the MHLs? Careful drafting would no doubt be required to make sure it didn't also apply to deranged idiots, but okay, it makes at least as much sense as the claim that MHLs are somehow discriminatory. Although, I think that laws to keep daredevil visionaries safe when they're doing mundane stuff are even more important than for Reg'lar Folk. If a daredevil visionary dies jumping a skateboard across a live volcano they were doing what they loved, etc etc. If they die Elvis-fashion on the toilet, that's extra tragic and should be avoided at all costs.



/sarcasm

EDIT: John Paul Stapp was a daredevil visionary and an early promoter of mandatory seatbelts. Discuss.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Ross » Mon May 13, 2013 1:19 pm

Back off-topic to the sex compo thing - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-10/p ... rt/4682702

The High Court has agreed to hear a case involving a public servant who is claiming compensation for an injury she received while having sex on a work trip.
Insurer Comcare is challenging the woman's entitlement to compensation.
She was hurt when a light fitting fell on her while she was having sex in a motel room in regional New South Wales.
She had travelled to the town as part of her job for a Federal Government agency.
Comcare initially allowed the claim, but then reversed the decision.
After a long legal battle, the full bench of the Federal Court eventually ruled the woman was entitled to the claim because she was injured at accommodation where her employer had encouraged her to stay.
Comcare is challenging that, asking the High Court to clarify whether the Federal Court's ruling was sufficient in determining what falls within the course of employment.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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

Postby AUbicycles » Mon May 13, 2013 9:17 pm

Thanks for going off-topic because the topic before was seriously lagging in quality.

Very borderline so please take more time to consider what you are writing so that it is appropriate to this family audience forum.
User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8452
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Mon May 13, 2013 9:56 pm

I'm left quite confused by the above comment, I'm not sure what it is really referring to. Is it about discussions about sex in the context of workers compensation? Surely not!? Or are we now becoming like the US where fighting and violences and abuse is acceptable but wardrobe malfunction results in class actions and national inquiries. :shock:
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Mon May 13, 2013 11:36 pm

human909 wrote:I'm left quite confused by the above comment, I'm not sure what it is really referring to. Is it about discussions about sex in the context of workers compensation? Surely not!? Or are we now becoming like the US where fighting and violences and abuse is acceptable but wardrobe malfunction results in class actions and national inquiries. :shock:

I thought it was the toilet comment. I promise I won't do it again!
high_tea
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby London Boy » Thu May 16, 2013 2:36 pm

From an article in the British Medical Journal:
The authors examined data concerning all 66,000 cycling-related injuries in Canada between 1994 and 2008 – 30% of which were head injuries.

"When baseline trends in cycling-related injury rates were considered, the overall rates of head injuries were not appreciably altered by helmet legislation," they said.

They concluded: "While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal."

The [British] road safety minister, Stephen Hammond, said: "We encourage cyclists – especially children – to wear helmets to protect them if they have a crash. However, we believe this should remain a matter of individual choice rather than imposing additional regulations which would be difficult to enforce.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

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

Postby The zob » Thu May 16, 2013 5:41 pm

Hey....you left a bit out!!

Results: Between 1994 and 2008, 66 716 hospital admissions were for cycling related injuries in Canada. Between 1994 and 2003, the rate of head injuries among young people decreased by 54.0% (95% confidence interval 48.2% to 59.8%) in provinces with helmet legislation compared with 33.1% (23.3% to 42.9%) in provinces and territories without legislation. Among adults, the rate of head injuries decreased by 26.0% (16.0% to 36.3%) in provinces with legislation but remained constant in provinces and territories without legislation.

..........................................................

Strengths and limitations of this study
The National Trauma Registry Minimum Data Set captures information on all hospital admissions for cycling related injuries in Canada. Cyclists who die from their injuries before reaching a hospital are not included. Additional data on emergency room visits would have been beneficial, both to make inferences on the association between helmet legislation and milder head injuries and to refine counts of head injuries in small provinces and in the territories. None the less, before 2002 no province or territory systematically reported data on visits to emergency rooms to a national database. The National Trauma Registry Minimum Data Set also makes no distinction between cyclists injured on-road and off-road (for example, while jumping on BMX bikes or mountain biking), yet provincial helmet laws apply only to on-road cyclists. Helmets are standard in off-road cycling, with usage more than 80% in the 1990s and nearly 100% in recent studies.48 49 50 This increase, coupled with improvements to helmet design, may have contributed to a reduction in bicycle related head injuries in provinces where off-road cycling is common (British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec).


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Also from the British Medical Journel (with references :lol: )

Effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing head injury in children: case-control study
BMJ 1994; 308 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6922.173 (Published 15 January 1994)
Cite this as: BMJ 1994;308:173

S Thomas, C Acton, J Nixon, D Battistutta, W R Pitt, R Clark
Author Affiliations

Correspondence to Dr. Acton
Accepted 28 September 1993

Abstract
Objective : To examine the risk of injury to the head and the effect of wearing helmets in bicycle accidents among children.

Design : Case-control study by questionnaire completed by the children and their carers.

Setting : Two large children's hospitals in Brisbane, Australia.

Subjects : 445 children presenting with bicycle related injuries during 15 April 1991 to 30 June 1992. The cases comprised 102 children who had sustained injury to the upper head including the skull, forehead and scalp or loss of consciousness. The controls were 278 cyclists presenting with injuries other than to the head or face. A further 65 children with injuries to the face were considered as an extra comparison group.

Main outcome measures : Cause and type of injury, wearing of helmet.

Results : Most children (230) were injured after losing control and falling from their bicycle. Only 31 had contact with another moving vehicle. Children with head injury were significantly more likely to have made contact with a moving vehicle than control children (19 (19%) v 12 (4%), P<0.001). Head injuries were more likely to occur on paved surfaces than on grass, gravel, or dirt. Wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head injury by 63% (95% confidence interval 34% to 80%) and of loss of consciousness by 86% (62% to 95%).


This is too easy :lol: :lol: Cherry picking paragraphs :roll: :lol: :lol: Really....come on man :lol:
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 16, 2013 8:49 pm

How many times does it need to be said? Nobody here is arguing against the protective benefits of a helmet. You could make the same case for wearing helmets while driving.

But none of that makes a case for making helmets compulsory.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby wilddemon » Fri May 17, 2013 10:22 am

human909 wrote:How many times does it need to be said? Nobody here is arguing against the protective benefits of a helmet. You could make the same case for wearing helmets while driving.

That's true. But this is the MHL for bicycles thread, not MHL for cars thread.

human909 wrote:But none of that makes a case for making helmets compulsory.

You've just argued that you could make the same case for wearing helmets whilst driving. Why can't you use this as an argument for helmets whilst cycling? You are contradicting yourself.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby London Boy » Fri May 17, 2013 12:27 pm

The zob wrote:Hey....you left a bit out!!

This is too easy :lol: :lol: Cherry picking paragraphs :roll: :lol: :lol: Really....come on man :lol:

I kind of assumed that, since the BMJ is a reputable peer-reviewed journal, I could quote the conclusions drawn by the researchers rather than second-guess their analysis.

The problem with quoting the raw accident and injury statistics is that they are incomplete in and of themselves. What seems unarguable is that, with one notable exception, the safest countries (I should say jurisdictions) in which to ride a bicycle are those with the greatest proportion of cyclists in their general populations. That kind of indicates that the best way to make riders safe is to persuade lots of people to ride, not to put barriers in their way.

What those numbers don't show is the relationship between accidents / injuries and miles traveled / journeys taken. They don't show the relationship between injury rates and participation rates, so for all we know the injury rates fell in those provinces with helmet laws because the numbers of riders fell. In fact it tells us very little of value.

So I kind of go back to the researchers' conclusions. Helmet laws make minimal difference to injury rates.

But they do reduce utility cycling (hence the miserable uptake of e.g. Brisbane's CityCycle, compared with similar initiatives in European cities) and they act as a barrier to participation generally. Which means, paradoxically, that the helmet laws actually increase the likelihood of injury. They probably also contribute to the increasing rates of heart disease, diabetes and so on that arise because people take too little exercise.

Etc, kind of thing. It's all been done to death here. It's just that, let's face it, Australia is a nanny state. Australians are not fit to make their own decisions or look after their own interests. Weird, that, but it's just the way it is.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

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

Postby The zob » Fri May 17, 2013 2:29 pm

human909 wrote:How many times does it need to be said? Nobody here is arguing against the protective benefits of a helmet.


Aye? :shock: Almost 12 months ago you wrore this:

Mandatory helmets do not have a health and safety benefit


Is "Health and safety" different to "Protective benefits"? :lol: :lol:

Anyhoo...back to the cherry picked quote that isn't a quote :lol: ......IF the point of that post wasn't to demonstrate that helmets DO NOT increase a cyclist's likelihood to sustain a head injury (Which falls under the heading "Protective benefits" :wink: :lol: ), then please explain exactly what it was supposed to achieve?
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 » Fri May 17, 2013 4:14 pm

The zob wrote: Is "Health and safety" different to "Protective benefits"? :lol: :lol:

Anyhoo...back to the cherry picked quote that isn't a quote :lol: ......IF the point of that post wasn't to demonstrate that helmets DO NOT increase a cyclist's likelihood to sustain a head injury (Which falls under the heading "Protective benefits" :wink: :lol: ), then please explain exactly what it was supposed to achieve?


Sigh. After all this discussion you still are missing the whole point of discussion! :lol: :roll:

The discussion is over MANDATORY helmet laws!

Mandating helmet laws have resulted in reduced cycling rates and thus reduced safety. Furthermore the negatives health impacts of reduced cycling outweigh any tiny increase in injuries. Finally everybody is still free to wear helmets to protect themselves and they'd be safer than with MHLs!

In fact I encourage helmet wearing if you are partaking in risky forms of cycling. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby DavidS » Fri May 17, 2013 9:31 pm

wilddemon wrote:
human909 wrote:How many times does it need to be said? Nobody here is arguing against the protective benefits of a helmet. You could make the same case for wearing helmets while driving.

That's true. But this is the MHL for bicycles thread, not MHL for cars thread.

human909 wrote:But none of that makes a case for making helmets compulsory.

You've just argued that you could make the same case for wearing helmets whilst driving. Why can't you use this as an argument for helmets whilst cycling? You are contradicting yourself.


Wow, what a weak argument.

Human909 argued that you could make the same case for mandatory helmets for driving. But the fact is we don't, and the question obviously arises as to why some do mount an argument for mandatory helmet use for cyclists. It is a great way to get the pesky cyclists off the roads though, certainly discourages everyone except those committed to cycling from using their bikes.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby wilddemon » Fri May 17, 2013 10:15 pm

DavidS wrote:
Wow, what a weak argument.

Human909 argued that you could make the same case for mandatory helmets for driving. But the fact is we don't, and the question obviously arises as to why some do mount an argument for mandatory helmet use for cyclists. It is a great way to get the pesky cyclists off the roads though, certainly discourages everyone except those committed to cycling from using their bikes.

DS


Sorry I don't follow your logic.
OK, make a case for mandatory helmets for driving if you want. But I don't understand what place that has here.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby high_tea » Fri May 17, 2013 10:32 pm

As I understand it, it's an argument that transport policy is hopelessly motorist-centric; that MHLs for motorists don't exist because they would inconvenience motorists(cf MHLs for cyclists) and that were the policy to change so that the different groups were treated equally we would have MHLs for both or not at all. I buy this argument (although my money's on MHLs for both). As I've said before, were such a change to occur, MHLs wouldn't be the most interesting or important consequence, not by a long chalk.

EDIT: clarification
high_tea
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Fri May 17, 2013 11:51 pm

wilddemon wrote:Sorry I don't follow your logic.
OK, make a case for mandatory helmets for driving if you want. But I don't understand what place that has here.


The same case already exists for MHLs for car drivers! So if there is a case for MHL for cyclists then why not for motorists? The inconsistent reasoning is simply stunning.

Possibly because it is inconvenient and voters wouldn't tolerate it? In truth no real case has been made for MHLs for cyclists. All the research doesn't even look at likelihood, only consequence.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist