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 » 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: 5787
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

by BNA » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:06 pm

BNA
 

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: 1077
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: 3342
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: 5787
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: 1491
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.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7179
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: 5787
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: 1077
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: 1365
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: 5787
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: 1491
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.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7179
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: 1294
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.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:41 pm

To me, the article seemed to mostly be about motorcycle helmet standards, and about how designing meaningful experiments is harder than it looks. All good stuff! I didn't see anything that would challenge the contention that a bicycle helmet is better than nothing, nor that helmet efficacy is well-settled.

Another interesting point was the magazine that went and tested and compared helmets cf a simple pass/fail wrt the standard. It's highly likely that some bike helmets are better than others, but how'd you ever know?
high_tea
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Xplora » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:20 pm

The interest I had in the article revolved around the fact that the standards are not necessarily suitable for purpose, and don't support the argument that they deserve legislative weight. Honestly, I don't know if I'd come up with anything better if I was Standards Australia, but the beef with MHL is at a legal level - because of the social/health/psychological impacts of the law.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:04 pm

high_tea wrote:To me, the article seemed to mostly be about motorcycle helmet standards, and about how designing meaningful experiments is harder than it looks. All good stuff! I didn't see anything that would challenge the contention that a bicycle helmet is better than nothing, nor that helmet efficacy is well-settled.

Another interesting point was the magazine that went and tested and compared helmets cf a simple pass/fail wrt the standard. It's highly likely that some bike helmets are better than others, but how'd you ever know?


Nor did I. But I simply posted it in the other head because it actually had sensible and analytical discussion regarding rigid vs less rigid helmet design.

There is alot of room for discussion. Furthermore once you explore the issues you quickly come to the conclusion that bike helmets are not an optimal helmet for high speed road riding. However an optimal helmet would be far to heavy to for road cyclists to tolerate. Overall it should be clear to most that a helmet is still not very good protection against head impacts. Its no magic bullet. Helmets do improve the safety of an individual but sometimes people give bicycle helmets more credit than they deserve. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 5787
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jcjordan » Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:10 pm

human909 wrote:
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. :(

MHL just like seatbelts, speed limits have evidence behind them that shows are injury reduction and therefore a overall benefit to society.

Yes I can also remember as a kid being able to ride on the streets. But this is a misguided desire for our modern world. The fact is that over the last 15 years car numbers have nearly tripled. The fact is with that many vehicles are street are busier and less safe for children
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby human909 » Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:41 am

jcjordan wrote:Yes I can also remember as a kid being able to ride on the streets. But this is a misguided desire for our modern world.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Are you kidding me!?

How is it so misguided to have our streets safe for kids?


jcjordan wrote:The fact is with that many vehicles are street are busier and less safe for children

Which book of facts are you getting this rubbish from?
human909
 
Posts: 5787
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:36 pm

[quote="jcjordan"]MHL just like seatbelts, speed limits have evidence behind them that shows are injury reduction and therefore a overall benefit to society. /quote]

Really? Find some that isn't provided or funded by vested interests or axe grinders like that Brit lady that got thrown in here for no other reason than pot stirring.

I'm pretty sure that there's been studies published stating that at a societal level, Australians ARE the fattest people on Earth. One of the best ways to reduce or stop this at a personal level is to increase the amount of incidental exercise, one possible way would be by riding the 800m to the shops instead of driving.
Of course this is an impossible dream because the roads are so dangerously congested by all the people who believe that they can't use active transport because the roads are so dangerously crowded.

Dozens or hundreds of deaths a year from our sedentary lifestyle versus maybe a few dead cyclists from head injuries...

Tree, meet Forest.
...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: 26759
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby Ken Ho » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:55 pm

There is a great Yehuda Moon strip illustrating that.
All the Moms who drive heir kids o school are creating the xact hazard they want to protect them from.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1294
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 DavidS » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:05 pm

jcjordan wrote:MHL just like seatbelts, speed limits have evidence behind them that shows are injury reduction and therefore a overall benefit to society.


Really? Care to provide some evidence that MHLs reduce injuries or are you content to leave it as just an assertion?

jcjordan wrote:Yes I can also remember as a kid being able to ride on the streets. But this is a misguided desire for our modern world. The fact is that over the last 15 years car numbers have nearly tripled. The fact is with that many vehicles are street are busier and less safe for children


Aah yes, the good old days. When people drove home from the pub drunk. When most cars had drum brakes, ponderous steering and rubbish suspension. When speeding was something to brag about. When the road toll in Victoria was well over 1,000 per annum.

Are they the days of safe roads you are referring to?

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby jcjordan » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:23 pm

human909 wrote:
jcjordan wrote:Yes I can also remember as a kid being able to ride on the streets. But this is a misguided desire for our modern world.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Are you kidding me!?

How is it so misguided to have our streets safe for kids?


jcjordan wrote:The fact is with that many vehicles are street are busier and less safe for children

Which book of facts are you getting this rubbish from?


As shown by the Australian Bureau of Statistics

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0

From 2007 to 2012 we have had a 13.3% increase in the number of cars on the road

In 2010 we were ranked 8th in the world with 695 vehicles (not including motorbikes) per 1000 people

Streets these days are simply busier.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby jcjordan » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
jcjordan wrote:MHL just like seatbelts, speed limits have evidence behind them that shows are injury reduction and therefore a overall benefit to society. /quote]

Really? Find some that isn't provided or funded by vested interests or axe grinders like that Brit lady that got thrown in here for no other reason than pot stirring.

I'm pretty sure that there's been studies published stating that at a societal level, Australians ARE the fattest people on Earth. One of the best ways to reduce or stop this at a personal level is to increase the amount of incidental exercise, one possible way would be by riding the 800m to the shops instead of driving.
Of course this is an impossible dream because the roads are so dangerously congested by all the people who believe that they can't use active transport because the roads are so dangerously crowded.

Dozens or hundreds of deaths a year from our sedentary lifestyle versus maybe a few dead cyclists from head injuries...

Tree, meet Forest.


when you look at the reasons that we put up in the CPF study (would they not be one of your vetted interest groups, oh sorry there on our side so its ok) MHL only accounted for around 13% of responded as a reason to not ride. If we want to get people exercisisng we need to get past the impression that people have busy lives and don't have the time to pop round to the shops on a bike.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby jcjordan » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:27 pm

Ken Ho wrote:There is a great Yehuda Moon strip illustrating that.
All the Moms who drive heir kids o school are creating the xact hazard they want to protect them from.


That I can agree with, you should see how the School Zones are treated around where I live.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



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

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

> FREE BNA Stickers