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 Percrime » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:48 pm

Actually thats exactly what you said. I can see you now frantically editing past posts. None the less thats exactly what you said and I know it. And so do you.

And many many people have spend many of the past few hundred posts doing their best to prove that "any measured detrimental effect (was) outweighed by public good that are provided by helmets"

Thats the point of the entire thread. But yes the reasonably defensible position for the current law is exactly that its a net positive

But the fact this discussion has gone on so long wIth if you will pardon my noticing it some really excellent and well written arguments in favor of it not being a net positive show that its not so clear cut. That its possible and even likely that the law is a net negative in terms of outcomes for the health of the population, and the safety of cyclists generally

And in fact all that should be necessary is to point out that its possible that thats the case. We surely should not be supporters of any legislation that is not absolutely to the public good. Otherwise its legislation for the sake of restriction of ones freedoms. And thats the point. If you cant prove its a good idea then legislating a freedom away is always a bad idea
Percrime
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

by BNA » Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:06 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby DavidH » Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:06 pm

Ken Ho wrote:Me, I quit riding for a decade after MHL came in.

Percrime wrote:I quit for 10 years too.


Why? I'm not sure I would have made the same choice if I were in your position so I'm genuinely interested in hearing a few more details.
User avatar
DavidH
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:54 am
Location: Kaleen, ACT

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

Postby Percrime » Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:57 pm

Well in my case the motorists all seemed to become about a million times more agressive overnight. I had near miss after nearmiss.. on one occasion loosing the back of a glove to a car in a 100 kph zone. And suddenly I seemed to be the only cyclist on my training rides. For months. From seeing dozens of bikes around broady and glenroy I would occasionally see one. Couple that to my polystyrene crash hat having given me heat stroke off the back of a GVBR a few months before ( IIRC this was the first year of helmet laws) nah. All too hard. I bought a motorcycle, shoved the bike in the parents garage, let the race licence expire and forgot about the thing until easterbike 10 years later.
Percrime
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby Baldy » Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:29 pm

http://www.bhit.org/home.html

My new hero Angela Lee.

I have let a few relevant people know about her great work. With the aim of getting some funding so we can get her over here to inform our policy makers leading up to the federal election.

There are people who would be very interested in talking to her and I'm just glad I can play a small part in making that happen.
Baldy
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:55 pm

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

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:27 am

:roll:
...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: 25544
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby jcjordan » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:53 am

Percrime wrote:Actually thats exactly what you said. I can see you now frantically editing past posts. None the less thats exactly what you said and I know it. And so do you.

And many many people have spend many of the past few hundred posts doing their best to prove that "any measured detrimental effect (was) outweighed by public good that are provided by helmets"

Thats the point of the entire thread. But yes the reasonably defensible position for the current law is exactly that its a net positive

But the fact this discussion has gone on so long wIth if you will pardon my noticing it some really excellent and well written arguments in favor of it not being a net positive show that its not so clear cut. That its possible and even likely that the law is a net negative in terms of outcomes for the health of the population, and the safety of cyclists generally

And in fact all that should be necessary is to point out that its possible that thats the case. We surely should not be supporters of any legislation that is not absolutely to the public good. Otherwise its legislation for the sake of restriction of ones freedoms. And thats the point. If you cant prove its a good idea then legislating a freedom away is always a bad idea

I have not edited a single post once it was up and take offence to the accusation that I have.

What I have said a that we need to look at what has a impact on cycling preventing it from becoming more popular as a means of transport of which helmets are just one factor.

As for governments and regulation. We can all point out laws or controls put on the population that we have a objection to. Most are put in place based on well thought out research and consideration and other which may have been more gut level reactions.

This does not means that they are they are wrong but should be further questioned to ensure that they are worth continuing. Helmets fit in this case.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby Ken Ho » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:19 am

Baldy wrote:http://www.bhit.org/home.html

My new hero Angela Lee.

I have let a few relevant people know about her great work. With the aim of getting some funding so we can get her over here to inform our policy makers leading up to the federal election.

There are people who would be very interested in talking to her and I'm just glad I can play a small part in making that happen.


In the face of a massive child obesity epidemic, she is barking up the wrong tree.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1266
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 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:45 am

"Angela Lee of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (or BHIT – a somewhat disturbing abbreviation…) who does not ride a bike (see picture below) yet ‘believes’ that cyclists should be forced to wear helmets…" Image

Yup cool. Bring her out. Maybe we can get her on a bike. She could use the exercise

Image

Her organisation has an unsavoury rep for ambulance chasing.. campaigns based on "think of the children you selfish homicidal bastar$" and she is on record as disagreeing with reengineering roads to make them safer for cyclists. I found another pic that enraged me... of her with a couple of random people and an olympian who agreed with her cos he once apparently had his life saved by a helmet when he was ran over by a petrol tanker. (riiight..that happened) He was an olympian in rowing. Nuff said I think. You can put me on the other side of the debate just cos I choose the people I fight with.
Last edited by Percrime on Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:02 am, edited 12 times in total.
Percrime
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby human909 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:53 am

jcjordan wrote:What I have said a that we need to look at what has a impact on cycling preventing it from becoming more popular as a means of transport of which helmets are just one factor.


You were denying that they were a known factor.

jcjordan wrote:
human909 wrote:The fact remains that MHLs are a barrier to cycling. This is a FACT.


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
human909
 
Posts: 4719
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jcjordan » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:23 am

human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:What I have said a that we need to look at what has a impact on cycling preventing it from becoming more popular as a means of transport of which helmets are just one factor.


You were denying that they were a known factor.

jcjordan wrote:
human909 wrote:The fact remains that MHLs are a barrier to cycling. This is a FACT.


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

Which is true, they are not a known factor for reducing cycling across the wider population and regardless of what you may think a bunch of posters here do not make a significant statistical basis to back it up.

As I have said all along they are a possible factor, along with bunch of others, which needs to be properly researched.

We then need to weigh that research against the overall benefits to society both for and against MHLs.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby Percrime » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:34 pm

Nope. I,m leaving it. Its impossible to respond without mentioning a total lack of comprehension on the part of people that BNA rules dont let me name

Its like the Creationist debate I watched the other day where one side kept saying "show me the evidence" Evidence is duly produced. "Thats not evidence", more evidence is produced. "Still not evidence. " Yet more evidence is produced "Until you show me the evidence I am forced to conclude that you have none and therefore I am right and you are wrong" (and yes I paraphrase.. it was way longer and more painful than that.. but its a good paraphrase)

Made my head hurt that did. If anyone wants to watch 30 minutes of stupid on an entirely different topic... ask and I shall post. But I,m not cruel enough to do so without warning. And this particular bit of this debate is headed the same way
Percrime
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby human909 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:32 pm

jcjordan wrote:Which is true, they are not a known factor for reducing cycling across the wider population and regardless of what you may think a bunch of posters here do not make a significant statistical basis to back it up.

Image
Source: E. Fishman et al. (2012), Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach, Transportation Research Part F


In another survey....
16.5% Listed helmets as a reason for not riding.


Yep. This is all a conspiracy. Helmets don't discourage cycling. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4719
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jcjordan » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:06 pm

human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:Which is true, they are not a known factor for reducing cycling across the wider population and regardless of what you may think a bunch of posters here do not make a significant statistical basis to back it up.

Image
Source: E. Fishman et al. (2012), Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach, Transportation Research Part F


In another survey....
16.5% Listed helmets as a reason for not riding.


Yep. This is all a conspiracy. Helmets don't discourage cycling. :roll:

Thanks. Now I have some reading to do
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby biker jk » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:47 pm

human909 wrote:

In another survey....
16.5% Listed helmets as a reason for not riding.


Yep. This is all a conspiracy. Helmets don't discourage cycling. :roll:


But 67.1% mentioned unsafe road conditions for not riding more frequently, i.e. four times more commonly cited than helmets. It's a minor issue. Stop wasting time on it.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:10 pm

biker jk wrote:But 67.1% mentioned unsafe road conditions for not riding more frequently, i.e. four times more commonly cited than helmets. It's a minor issue. Stop wasting time on it.


But it is an issue! :idea:
human909
 
Posts: 4719
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby DavidS » Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:02 pm

biker jk wrote:
human909 wrote:

In another survey....
16.5% Listed helmets as a reason for not riding.


Yep. This is all a conspiracy. Helmets don't discourage cycling. :roll:


But 67.1% mentioned unsafe road conditions for not riding more frequently, i.e. four times more commonly cited than helmets. It's a minor issue. Stop wasting time on it.


Ok, so we should ignore the MHL issue should we? I disagree, I think some of us can campaign on more than one issue at a time. I would like to encourage cycling and therefore would like to see both the infrastructure improved and bareheaded riding legalised. I wonder though, if the imposition of MHLs has contributed to those who see the roads, which bicycles have been travelling along for well over 100 years, are now seen as being unsafe even in the face of lower accident and fatality rates. Given how much safer the roads are now, lower injury and death rates now than a few decades ago, I wonder how the impression that cycling on roads is unsafe has taken hold.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1308
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:40 pm

MHL certainly is a minority reason for reduced cyclist numbers, but it isn't irrelevent and it is certainly the cheapest way to improve cyclist numbers. Driver safety combined with infrastructure improvements are the most effective way to address the big concerns but they are out of control expensive and difficult to implement and action in a meaningful way. Recinding the helmet law is easier than changing the basics of how we approach vehicular collisions and passing responsibilities.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:32 pm

Xplora wrote:MHL certainly is a minority reason for reduced cyclist numbers, but it isn't irrelevent and it is certainly the cheapest way to improve cyclist numbers. Driver safety combined with infrastructure improvements are the most effective way to address the big concerns but they are out of control expensive and difficult to implement and action in a meaningful way. Recinding the helmet law is easier than changing the basics of how we approach vehicular collisions and passing responsibilities.


And none of that even begins to address the many other costs of MHLs on Australian cyclists! Fundamental freedom of choice, reduction in pleasure from cycling, impact on bike share schemes, etc.... Of course many cyclists here will laugh at such "emotional" factors but wander around Amsterdam, Copenhagen or even Darwin and you can begin to appreciate it more.

Alternatively get out and feel the wind in your hair for an afternoon! :mrgreen:
human909
 
Posts: 4719
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jcjordan » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:51 pm

human909 wrote:
Xplora wrote:MHL certainly is a minority reason for reduced cyclist numbers, but it isn't irrelevent and it is certainly the cheapest way to improve cyclist numbers. Driver safety combined with infrastructure improvements are the most effective way to address the big concerns but they are out of control expensive and difficult to implement and action in a meaningful way. Recinding the helmet law is easier than changing the basics of how we approach vehicular collisions and passing responsibilities.


And none of that even begins to address the many other costs of MHLs on Australian cyclists! Fundamental freedom of choice, reduction in pleasure from cycling, impact on bike share schemes, etc.... Of course many cyclists here will laugh at such "emotional" factors but wander around Amsterdam, Copenhagen or even Darwin and you can begin to appreciate it more.

Alternatively get out and feel the wind in your hair for an afternoon! :mrgreen:

Governments have put limitations on choice for the good of social welfare since the beginning of time, as is there central purpose. MHLs are no different to speed limits, DUI laws, littering, etc in their general purpose.

As with all these laws the belief is that the restrictions place on society are overall beneficial. Where the majority of members disagree, such as with prohibition, they can rise up and work towards changing them.

In this case I have seen no evidence which shows a overall benefit to improved cycling numbers which would warrant the removal of the laws when compared to protection aspects.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:08 pm

DavidS wrote:
biker jk wrote:
human909 wrote:

In another survey....
16.5% Listed helmets as a reason for not riding.


Yep. This is all a conspiracy. Helmets don't discourage cycling. :roll:


But 67.1% mentioned unsafe road conditions for not riding more frequently, i.e. four times more commonly cited than helmets. It's a minor issue. Stop wasting time on it.


Ok, so we should ignore the MHL issue should we? I disagree, I think some of us can campaign on more than one issue at a time. I would like to encourage cycling and therefore would like to see both the infrastructure improved and bareheaded riding legalised. I wonder though, if the imposition of MHLs has contributed to those who see the roads, which bicycles have been travelling along for well over 100 years, are now seen as being unsafe even in the face of lower accident and fatality rates. Given how much safer the roads are now, lower injury and death rates now than a few decades ago, I wonder how the impression that cycling on roads is unsafe has taken hold.

DS


I dunno, but from my personal experience, that attitude predates MHLs. Have they reinforced that attitude? It's plausible, but I can't see how you'd ever get a definitive answer.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:16 pm

jcjordan wrote:Governments have put limitations on choice for the good of social welfare since the beginning of time, as is there central purpose. MHLs are no different to speed limits, DUI laws, littering, etc in their general purpose.

As with all these laws the belief is that the restrictions place on society are overall beneficial. Where the majority of members disagree, such as with prohibition, they can rise up and work towards changing them.

No disputes there. Except all those things you mention are individual actions that significantly and regularly hurt others in society. Me not wearing a helmet doesn't.

jcjordan wrote:In this case I have seen no evidence which shows a overall benefit to improved cycling numbers which would warrant the removal of the laws when compared to protection aspects.

So remind me again what public benefit have MHLs had?


high_tea wrote:I dunno, but from my personal experience, that attitude predates MHLs. Have they reinforced that attitude? It's plausible, but I can't see how you'd ever get a definitive answer.

In my personal experience as a child pre-MHLs was one of riding around the neighbourhood on my bicycle. All the neighbourhood children did this. We set up jumps and race down hills and launched ourselves off them. We rode everywhere and anywhere in the neighbourhood. Helmets were rarely see. Scraped knees and elbows we occasionally had but no bid dramas or head injuries. (Probably 50% of my riding was on roads, 50% on footpaths, carparks, backalleys, etc.) Around the start of my teens I lived in Holland, again only 50% of the riding here was on roads without a helmet.


I find it sad that we tell our children that the roads are too dangerous. :(
Last edited by human909 on Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4719
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby DavidS » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:50 pm

My personal experience was that when I was a kid we were encouraged to get out on our bikes. This was back in the days when cycling infrastructure was more commonly referred to as "roads". This is in stark contrast to today where parents are discouraging kids from riding bikes, even more so if they can't drive their kids to a nice safe bike path away from the roads. MHLs reinforce these attitudes.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1308
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Xplora » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:43 pm

human909 wrote:No disputes there. Except all those things you mention are individual actions that significantly and regularly hurt others in society. Me not wearing a helmet doesn't.

Just to back this up - if injury and death was a principal concern in the restriction of freedom, then guns would be totally banned and cars would be totally banned and knives would be totally banned. There are far more deaths from these things than lives saved by helmets.
jc, your argument about restriction for the good of society doesn't stack up against the evidence.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby Ken Ho » Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:12 pm

Xplora wrote:
human909 wrote:No disputes there. Except all those things you mention are individual actions that significantly and regularly hurt others in society. Me not wearing a helmet doesn't.

Just to back this up - if injury and death was a principal concern in the restriction of freedom, then guns would be totally banned and cars would be totally banned and knives would be totally banned. There are far more deaths from these things than lives saved by helmets.
jc, your argument about restriction for the good of society doesn't stack up against the evidence.


The three most dangerous things out there ?
Cigarettes, alcohol and food.
T activity most hazardous to your health ?
Sitting.
Tke your pick, but cycling head injuries don't rate at 1: 1 000 000.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1266
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 Xplora » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:05 pm

"Are downhill riders better off choosing helmets that were engineered for the crashes they'll likely face on a downhill course, rather than those engineered for 75-mph trips into car barriers?"

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/DH-Helmets ... Safer.html
Posted by H909 in another thread. Very interesting, and sensible article, about the variance in expected impacts for PPE. You could wear a solid steel helmet, but it wouldn't help in a crash because the flesh under the helmet isn't protected. One ongoing comment is that some helmet is better than none, but there are design parameters that must be accounted for. A bike helmet isn't designed for impacts beyond falling over on a PSP; it must have extremely limited value in many car/bike accidents to meet the standard and still be practical.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5539
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



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



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