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 Jun 07, 2013 10:47 pm

Mulger bill wrote:Now show us the peer reviewed research that concluded back in the day that lids were, on the whole, of societal benefit...


A peer reviewed research paper(1) which conducted a meta analysis of relevant decision makers across the globe(2) reveal that the vast majority of social benefit maximisers(3) decide that the best course of action is to allow individual choice regarding cycling without helmets. :idea:


(1) human909 2013
(2) Globe being the third planet form the star known as Sol
(3) Ruling governments of recognised Countries as defined by the United Nations.
human909
 
Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

by BNA » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:19 am

BNA
 

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

Postby high_tea » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:19 am

Percrime wrote:Its because unlike in a rocket sled any conceivable aircraft structure at 600 kph will collapse straight through the pilots. As yet anyway And just between you and I 600 kph is a really significant fraction of the speed of sound


Well, that explains why seatbelts don't invariably work. Which I wasn't putting in issue anyway. What I was contending is that, like seatbelts, helmets are better than nothing and that there isn't some speed where this magically stops being the case. Helmet efficacy is well settled but, like all safety devices they're far from infallible.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:36 am

high_tea wrote:Well, that explains why seatbelts don't invariably work. Which I wasn't putting in issue anyway. What I was contending is that, like seatbelts, helmets are better than nothing and that there isn't some speed where this magically stops being the case. Helmet efficacy is well settled but, like all safety devices they're far from infallible.


No debate here! But mandatory helmets laws are a completely different issue! :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jcjordan » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:37 pm

human909 wrote:
Howzat wrote:
human909 wrote:Helmets are a requirement under our laws. This is by definition a barrier to those who don't have or don't want to wear a helmet.

See Mandatory Seat Belt Laws, arguments against, circa 1970s


Yes it is.

jcjordan wrote:Using you argument the laws that restrict my ability to speed are detrimental to me driving, or environmental laws, or the laws that prevents me from carrying a weapon for self defence reduce my ability to go out at night.

It purely emotional


Huh? You've suddenly changed the vocabulary and the meaning! I said that helmets are a barrier to cycling. FACT

I've never said that helmets are detrimental to individual cycling! In fact if you pose that quetion then I absolutely would argue that the availability of helmets are beneficial to individual cyclist!

(Honestly I get sick of people constantly trying to misrepresent the arguments of pro choice people here. I am not against helmets in any way shape or form. They bring many benefits. Making them mandatory does not.)

I understand where you are coming from but my argument stands.
It is not fact that helmets are a barrier to entering cycling. At best we have a bunch of emotionally based surveys that are subjectivity suspect
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby jcjordan » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:44 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
jcjordan wrote:No it is a supported theory as there has been no peer reviewed research that identifies MHLs as a cause. They have only identified it as a potential cause


Now show us the peer reviewed research that concluded back in the day that lids were, on the whole, of societal benefit...

Agreed prior to the introduction of MHLs the research was limited and not sufficient to be used as policy introduction.

Since there has been considerable research done, as has been shown in this discussion, which on balance does support there use. This now needs to be balanced against good research against the benefits which may be gained should it be proven that making them voluntary again.

It is this second part which has yet to be proven. We cannot just say that because it works for another place that this would work here which seems to be the basis for the bulk of the arguments in this thread.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby mikesbytes » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:26 pm

Percrime wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:
Percrime wrote:Grrrr.. Too angry to respond coherently. Tell me just how many people do you know who had their lives saved by wearing a helmet Mr Biker?

My life was saved by a helmet, that is what the doctors have told me.


All these doctors with engineering degrees who know what they are looking at when they carefully examine a crumped helmet. So how was the rehab? You wind up with any permanent impairment? After my fractured skull (and they survive 10 times the impact a helmet does on average, ) I could never do quadratic equations in my head. Don't get 130 in IQ tests any more either :( My life was saved by my mum who prayed for me. She knows a lot about (her) religion so she must be right. :P Of course the blood transfusion may have helped so my life was also saved by a blood donor or two

That sounds nasty.

I was knocked out for 10 minutes, I have been advised. Multiple skull fractures (front and rear) various other broken bones. Took a while to return to normal, but my head is fine nowadays.

Wouldn't like a repeat of that
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 14811
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:22 pm

jcjordan wrote:I understand where you are coming from but my argument stands.
It is not fact that helmets are a barrier to entering cycling. At best we have a bunch of emotionally based surveys that are subjectivity suspect


Well of course somebodies decision is subjective and emotionally based. We are talking about people here so that is unavoidable. But that doesn't mean that their decision not to cycle dute to MHLs is invalid. There have been several times that I myself have been prevented from cycling by mandatory helmet laws. By definition that is a barrier.

You are trying to deny reality here.
human909
 
Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:44 pm

jcjordan wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:
jcjordan wrote:No it is a supported theory as there has been no peer reviewed research that identifies MHLs as a cause. They have only identified it as a potential cause


Now show us the peer reviewed research that concluded back in the day that lids were, on the whole, of societal benefit...

Agreed prior to the introduction of MHLs the research was limited and not sufficient to be used as policy introduction.

Since there has been considerable research done, as has been shown in this discussion, which on balance does support there use. This now needs to be balanced against good research against the benefits which may be gained should it be proven that making them voluntary again.

It is this second part which has yet to be proven. We cannot just say that because it works for another place that this would work here which seems to be the basis for the bulk of the arguments in this thread.


So you're happy for a serious impost to be introduced on the basis of junk science but demand a higher standard of research before any consideration be given to relaxation? If I was a hipster, my moustache would be furiously twirling at that thought.

I'd like to remind all that we're looking at a forest here. The loss of an individual tree, while unfortunate has little bearing on the status of the rest.
Is preventing one cracked skull worth it if as a partial result of saving that skull a dozen suffer from atherosclerosis or diabetes because thay excercise less because their once chosen form is sooo dangerous that they MUST wear PPE.

Oh yeah, seatbelts.-Red herring. One is an engineering solution, t'other is PPE. Different approaches, different methods.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25793
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby jcjordan » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:50 pm

human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:I understand where you are coming from but my argument stands.
It is not fact that helmets are a barrier to entering cycling. At best we have a bunch of emotionally based surveys that are subjectivity suspect


Well of course somebodies decision is subjective and emotionally based. We are talking about people here so that is unavoidable. But that doesn't mean that their decision not to cycle dute to MHLs is invalid. There have been several times that I myself have been prevented from cycling by mandatory helmet laws. By definition that is a barrier.

You are trying to deny reality here.

No what I am trying to say was that if we properly studied the factors which effect people getting on bikes I don't think helmets are as large a factor as members on this forum make out.

I have yet to see any statistical research which properly looked at the factors more widely not just asking a single helmet related question. Start adding weather, distance, comfort, etc. I suspect that you get a interesting answer.

It would also allow the cycling community better target it's efforts in getting more people out there on bikes.

While we keep emotional focusing on this free will aspect which has nothing to do with getting people out on bikes.

To me most of the argument in this thread has more to do with their feeling that the government has no right to tell them how they should run their life. Which is why I have said that it tends to use arguments which have a lot in common with those used by the gun lobby in the Us
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby Ken Ho » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:24 am

The post above is interesting. It states that helmets are not a barrier to cycling, then goes on to admit that people resent the imposition.
Me, I quit riding for a decade after MHL came in.
I wear a bobby dodger now, but rather than getting used to it, I resent it more and more as time goes by.
I want to wear the hat of my choice, not a dunce cap.
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 Percrime » Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:15 am

Yes exactly. He is denying the effect while in the same sentence admitting the effect.
Oh and +1. I quit for 10 years too. But apparently not cos of the helmet laws. Except that it was.
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby jcjordan » Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:50 pm

Percrime wrote:Yes exactly. He is denying the effect while in the same sentence admitting the effect.
Oh and +1. I quit for 10 years too. But apparently not cos of the helmet laws. Except that it was.

Exactly where did I saw helmets were the factor? As I pointed out they are a possible factor, one of many, and until proven otherwise that's all they will be.

Add to this we have yet to measure this possible impact against the benefits to society as a whole
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby Ken Ho » Sun Jun 09, 2013 1:28 pm

Your last paragraph concedes that people have strong feelings about these things, which shape their actions.
To deny this is folly.
Comparing MHL to seatbelt laws ignores the reliance people have on cars.
As much as I like my bikes, if I were forced to choose one, I would have to choose the car. There are tyrannies of distance, weather and obligation which make he car an essential for me and most people.
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 Percrime » Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:20 pm

jc. the last two posters have stated they had their cycling reduced by the helmet law. That in itself stops the helmet law being a 'possible factor' in a drop in cycling. To argue otherwise is clearly a logical fallacy. It only remains to determine the effect.

We have the only two cities in the world with a failed public bike scheme. And the only two citys in the world to have tried a public bike scheme with a helmet law. Nothing else unique about those cities. Or their bike schemes

There you go.. measured.
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby biker jk » Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:42 pm

Percrime wrote:jc. the last two posters have stated they had their cycling reduced by the helmet law. That in itself stops the helmet law being a 'possible factor' in a drop in cycling. To argue otherwise is clearly a logical fallacy. It only remains to determine the effect.

We have the only two cities in the world with a failed public bike scheme. And the only two citys in the world to have tried a public bike scheme with a helmet law. Nothing else unique about those cities. Or their bike schemes

There you go.. measured.


Just as we have Australia and the US, the former with MHLs but cycling take up is no higher in the latter. Measured.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:01 pm

biker jk wrote:Just as we have Australia and the US, the former with MHLs but cycling take up is no higher in the latter. Measured.

Nobody has said that MHLs are the only factor that influences cycling participation. :roll: But what IS clear is that MHLs present barriers to potential cyclist in taking up cycling.

Also it is interesting to note that the US has many successful bike share schemes. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Percrime » Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:02 pm

So tell me why the New York City bike sharing program in a city far less friendly to bicycles than Melbourne is booming. THe schemes in Denver and Minneapolis and the District of Columbia have been successful as has a scheme in Fort Worth Texas. Oh and there are more.

Canada can be compared to Australia far more readily than the US and we discover that in spite of a much colder climate that Canada has several successful schemes
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby ILMB » Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:50 pm

Ken Ho wrote:The post above is interesting. It states that helmets are not a barrier to cycling, then goes on to admit that people resent the imposition.
Me, I quit riding for a decade after MHL came in.
I wear a bobby dodger now, but rather than getting used to it, I resent it more and more as time goes by.
I want to wear the hat of my choice, not a dunce cap.


Me too to all the above
User avatar
ILMB
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:15 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby jcjordan » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:21 pm

Percrime wrote:jc. the last two posters have stated they had their cycling reduced by the helmet law. That in itself stops the helmet law being a 'possible factor' in a drop in cycling. To argue otherwise is clearly a logical fallacy. It only remains to determine the effect.

We have the only two cities in the world with a failed public bike scheme. And the only two citys in the world to have tried a public bike scheme with a helmet law. Nothing else unique about those cities. Or their bike schemes

There you go.. measured.

So 2 out of 26 million is now considered statistically correct for extrapolating data.

So if I go out and find two drivers who believe that bikes do not belong on the road that would be correct as well?

In regards to the 'failed' bike share schemes, I guess that we just discount poor cycling infrastructure, city's which are comparatively less dense in terms or population and drivers which are some of the most aggressive in the world (which has been proven).

As I said most of the arguments in this thread are based on emotions not science.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:54 pm

jcjordan wrote:So 2 out of 26 million is now considered statistically correct for extrapolating data.


Who is extrapolating? Individual anecdotes refute the crazy denial that helmets are not a barrier.

jcjordan wrote:So if I go out and find two drivers who believe that bikes do not belong on the road that would be correct as well?

Well then that would be correct that two drivers believe that bikes do not belong on the road.

jcjordan wrote:As I said most of the arguments in this thread are based on emotions not science.

You have got to be kidding.
human909
 
Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Percrime » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:38 pm

jcjordan wrote:So 2 out of 26 million is now considered statistically correct for extrapolating data.



If I type slowly maybe you will follow.

2 people say categorically that the reason they gave up cycling for years because of the helmet law. That IS a statistic. IT entirely disproves your contention that no one had proved that helmet laws affect participation in cycling.

2 people out of 11 billion would hold the same value. It entirely and completely disproves your assertion.

You can indeed argue that the first two people who responded to your post were the only two people in the history of humanity to actually behave in that way. It makes you look a complete jerk without the slightest grasp of probability theory. But yes you can make that argument and not completely be nuts.

You can argue that its a number that holds no statistical significance. A continuation of the theory above. Perhaps admitting to another half dozen irrational people out there who have quit cos of the helmet law. And that is indeed a somewhat defensible opinion. Dissenting evidence abounds but meh. Its the obvious response for you to make


BUT you can no longer argue that helmet laws do not affect participation in cycling. Not logically. The only thing you can argue logically is the degree of effect.

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH?
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby Percrime » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:51 pm

When I was last in london its cycling infrastructure was pretty poor. Cant say I have heard that Texas or NY were great. Mate seriously at least try and be credible  Texas is somewhat spread out too. And noted for agressive and armed drivers
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby Ken Ho » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:58 pm

Jcjordan, you may well be right about how emotional the argument against MHLs are, but that is exactly my point.
It's thre emotional response to MHLs that makes them such a problem.
MHLs are are a
Ienating and divisive, creating an us and them mentality which increases danger for cyclists on the road. It also dehumanizes us, making it OK for people to treat us like road kill, typically not stopping even after hitting a cyclist, like the girl in teh UK, who joked on Facebook about how she had creamed a guy into a hedge.
She might have well been describing hitting a cane toad or a feral cat. I suspect she would have been more upset to hit a cat.
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 Percrime » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:32 pm

I,m sure of it actually. How sad is that?
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby jcjordan » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:42 pm

Percrime wrote:
jcjordan wrote:So 2 out of 26 million is now considered statistically correct for extrapolating data.



If I type slowly maybe you will follow.

2 people say categorically that the reason they gave up cycling for years because of the helmet law. That IS a statistic. IT entirely disproves your contention that no one had proved that helmet laws affect participation in cycling.

2 people out of 11 billion would hold the same value. It entirely and completely disproves your assertion.

You can indeed argue that the first two people who responded to your post were the only two people in the history of humanity to actually behave in that way. It makes you look a complete jerk without the slightest grasp of probability theory. But yes you can make that argument and not completely be nuts.

You can argue that its a number that holds no statistical significance. A continuation of the theory above. Perhaps admitting to another half dozen irrational people out there who have quit cos of the helmet law. And that is indeed a somewhat defensible opinion. Dissenting evidence abounds but meh. Its the obvious response for you to make


BUT you can no longer argue that helmet laws do not affect participation in cycling. Not logically. The only thing you can argue logically is the degree of effect.

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH?

I never said that they did not have an effect but do not believe it is the most significant or even the majority factor until it has been properly proven.

If would then need to be shown that any measured detrimental effect outweighed by public good that are provided by helmets
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eddy montignac, Mulger bill



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