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 Mulger bill » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:32 pm

Not interested in what the CPF has to say.
What I'm interested in is YOU providing reasonably valid evidence to back up your claim.

We may be too busy to ride 800m to the shops but not too busy to drive 3km to the shopping centre and circulate for 10" looking for a spot near the door or indeed 5kms to the health club/gym/personal trainer.

Now where's my Alannis Moustache?
...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: 26994
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

by BNA » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:45 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby Xplora » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:45 pm

The biggest problem here is that MHL is NOT the answer to the problems you are talking about, jc. An increase in cars means greater responsibility on the people that choose to drive. They are making it slower and more anxious to drive, not cycling. 2-3% of the traffic - and arguably a good chunk on segregated paths. I know about a third of my 42km daily commute is on paths well away from cars. If the roads are busier, then drivers have to take more care, because pedestrians don't have seatbelts to protect them. A crumple zone is definitely not preferable PPE :shock: Reducing car traffic and increasing driver responsibility is the only answer to the increase in cars. Bikes are not the problem; people aren't dying en masse from head injuries on public roads because they didn't wear bicycle helmets; it's collisions with careless cars.

All the tests I"ve seen have "I don't like helmets" sitting around 1 in 6, but stretching to 1 in 8 is fine. It's certainly a side issue, but it has direct impacts on cycling that are unacceptable, mainly that it denormalises cycling. Busy roads absorb most of the extra cars; not backstreets where cycling takes a far smaller penalty since the average speed isn't affected as much. But ultimately, you have to pull your finger out - I'm a lazy bastard looking for an excuse is the biggest unwritten reason that stops people from riding. Can you imagine people believing they needed special walking shoes just to walk to the shops? That has no tangible impact on the ability to walk? That's a helmet in a nutshell. You have a special hat that is going to achieve nothing for 9999 of 10000 journeys. My knicks have created more comfort and wellbeing than my Oracle helmet that was destroyed in my prang last year.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7439
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby high_tea » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:27 pm

Xplora wrote:All the tests I"ve seen have "I don't like helmets" sitting around 1 in 6, but stretching to 1 in 8 is fine. It's certainly a side issue, but it has direct impacts on cycling that are unacceptable, mainly that it denormalises cycling. Busy roads absorb most of the extra cars; not backstreets where cycling takes a far smaller penalty since the average speed isn't affected as much. But ultimately, you have to pull your finger out - I'm a lazy bastard looking for an excuse is the biggest unwritten reason that stops people from riding. Can you imagine people believing they needed special walking shoes just to walk to the shops? That has no tangible impact on the ability to walk?


As a matter of fact, I can. People believe this very thing. Walking around with bare feet is regarded as eccentric, if not downright socially unacceptable. I can't remember all the lame-brained claptrap I've heard justifying this ridiculous stance over the years, but risk has come up. But thongs are okay, despite the fact that I can't think of any risk severe enough to get my attention and minor enough that thongs will provide meaningful protection. Let me point out that this completely illogical attitude to risk persists in the absence of any de jure requirement to wear shoes.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Baldy » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:56 pm

Mulger bill wrote: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.


You do know how easy it is to send an email right? Things are going well thanks for asking, I've had responses from the main ones I was after. What they do now is up to them.

Maybe you should spend less time rolling your eyes at legitimate posts and more time worrying about members making snide and irrelevant remarks about a womans weight.
Baldy
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:55 pm

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

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:15 am

high_tea wrote:I've heard justifying this ridiculous stance over the years.


Sorry but please remind me again what this 'ridiculous stance' is? Or were simply you referring the stance that helmets should not be mandatory while riding a bicycle?

I find it odd that you see this as ridiculous when it is actually entirely normal in the rest of the world. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:05 am

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:I've heard justifying this ridiculous stance over the years.


Sorry but please remind me again what this 'ridiculous stance' is? Or were simply you referring the stance that helmets should not be mandatory while riding a bicycle?

I find it odd that you see this as ridiculous when it is actually entirely normal in the rest of the world. :wink:

I was talking about attitudes to footwear.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Howzat » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:22 am

high_tea wrote:I was talking about attitudes to footwear.

...around here, you can't change minds and you can't change subjects. :D
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

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

Postby high_tea » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:37 am

Howzat wrote:
high_tea wrote:I was talking about attitudes to footwear.

...around here, you can't change minds and you can't change subjects. :D


LOL. I believe I'll pay that...
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby KonaCommuter » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:27 pm

An injustice
Bare-headed cyclists at 'some fault' for injuries http://m.thelocal.de/society/20130617-5 ... qus_thread

Published: 17 Jun 13 14:49 CET | Print version

Cyclists who suffer head injuries in a collision but are not wearing helmets are at least partly to blame – even if the crash itself was not their fault, a German court has ruled.

The Higher Regional Court of Schleswig Holstein state ruled that although there was no law to force cyclists to wear helmets, they so obviously offered protection against injury that all reasonably minded people would do so.

Helmets were also affordable, so there was no reason not to wear one, the court said.

The ruling came after a woman sued the driver of a car for damages following an accident. She had been riding past the car on her way to work when the door was opened, and she smashed into it, banging her head on the ground as she fell.

She suffered serious head injuries which kept her in hospital for two months, and needed further treatment afterwards. She asked the court to rule on the car owner's fault in the incident, so she could pursue her for damages.

But the judge ruled that the injuries she suffered were 20 percent the fault of the cyclist for not wearing a helmet. She said a helmet would not have prevented the accident but that the cyclist had failed to take reasonable measures to protect herself because she was not wearing one.

"Cyclists these days are exposed to a particular risk of injury in daily traffic. The traffic these days is particularly tight, with motorized vehicles dominating and cyclists often only seen by drivers as hindering the free flow of traffic," the judge's verdict read.

She said there was no serious doubt that helmets were effective protection against head injury and that they were affordable – meaning that any reasonable person would buy and wear one.
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:49 pm

A somewhat similar ruling from the UK: Reynolds v Strutt and Parker [2011] EWHC 2263. I've mislaid my copy of "German Torts Law for Dummies", so a discussion of the exact similarities or differences is beyond me. Both cases seem to take the view that helmet efficacy is well settled. A discussion of how applicable the UK case's reasoning is in Australia is, likewise, beyond me...
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby citywomble » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:27 pm

But the judge ruled that the injuries she suffered were 20 percent the fault of the cyclist for not wearing a helmet


Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?

Now apply the same precedents to a pedestrian suing a cyclist or motorist, or even to a motorist suing another motorist after a traffic accident. It is just as proven that a helmet will mitigate head injuries to both pedestrians and car occupants, so what is to stop a lawyer arguing the same for their defendant and what possible grounds would the judge have for rejecting that precedent too.

MHL for pedestrians and car occupants?

Just shows how 'silly' it is to place any blame on the cyclist here.
citywomble
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

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

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:40 pm

citywomble wrote:Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?


Great point.

It is applicable to cyclists because society dictates that it is appropriate, practical and sensible to wear a helmet while cycling while it is not appropriate practical and sensible to wear a helmet while driving a car.

While law loves to consider itself impartial, it generally is not. It is guided by social norms even if those social norms impinge on the very freedoms the law is supposed to uphold. In short the law is an ass. Such a ruling would never occur in a country like The Netherlands simply because not wearing helmets while cycling is considered very normal. In Australia if it came to a civil suit you'd be lucky to get anything if you weren't wearing a helmet. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby citywomble » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:18 pm

It is applicable to cyclists because society dictates that it is appropriate, practical and sensible to wear a helmet while cycling while it is not appropriate practical and sensible to wear a helmet while driving a car.


Why not just as appropriate, practical or sensible for car drivers, or pedestrians for that matter?

Even at 252 pages it seems we have a lot more potential for 'mass debating' here.
citywomble
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

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

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:56 pm

citywomble wrote:Why not just as appropriate, practical or sensible for car drivers, or pedestrians for that matter?


I was just stating the reason. Doesn't mean I agree with it. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby citywomble » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:35 am

Yup, I realised that, human.

I agree with you and was merely following on from your stated reason with the fact that, unless we challenge those societal norms that are ill advised and biased, we will continue to retain or add to the ill advised regulations (such as MHLs) which do so mich harm to the very elements of society they purport to protect.

Although, in the case of MHLs, the evidence tends towards vested interests (motoring) and diversion from properly funded solutions (government) combining to sell an easy fix to the public. Not only that but state governments were coerced into translating the bad concept into law by federal 'bullying' with threats to withhold road funding if not legislated.

MHLs came about for all the wrong reasons and now continue to be justified by those that have been seduced into accepting them while failing to realise the harm they actually do.
citywomble
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

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

Postby Xplora » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:21 am

Until they refuse to pay money for parents who refuse to immunise their children (despite conscientious objection) then this is a farce. Immunisation is MUCH more serious. Until they ban cults (as a Christian, I appreciate that atheists would find this ironic that I would raise this), until they ban uber fatty food for BMIs higher than 30, then protecting my head for the benefit of myself and society is an absolute nonsense.

Did you know that you can get a note from your doctor saying "the parents refuse to immunise" and they get their FTB despite a clause to ensure immunisation? It's a laughable pisstake. I can appreciate the proMHL argument... but it's not just and fair.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7439
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:14 am

citywomble wrote:
But the judge ruled that the injuries she suffered were 20 percent the fault of the cyclist for not wearing a helmet


Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?



It doesn't. One, there's no doctrine of stare decisis(sp?) in Germany (or so I'm told). Two, German decisions aren't binding on Australian courts. Three, I wouldn't assume what the ratio of the case was without reading the actual judgment, and I don't read German.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:40 pm

Xplora wrote:Until they refuse to pay money for parents who refuse to immunise their children (despite conscientious objection) then this is a farce. Immunisation is MUCH more serious. Until they ban cults (as a Christian, I appreciate that atheists would find this ironic that I would raise this), until they ban uber fatty food for BMIs higher than 30, then protecting my head for the benefit of myself and society is an absolute nonsense.

Did you know that you can get a note from your doctor saying "the parents refuse to immunise" and they get their FTB despite a clause to ensure immunisation? It's a laughable pisstake. I can appreciate the proMHL argument... but it's not just and fair.


I feel a certain deja vu. Sadly, this argument has not improved with age. No, the lack of some other hypothetical "better" law doesn't make MHLs morally unsustainable. Just like it didn't last time this came up.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:15 pm

high_tea wrote:I feel a certain deja vu. Sadly, this argument has not improved with age. No, the lack of some other hypothetical "better" law doesn't make MHLs morally unsustainable. Just like it didn't last time this came up.


MHLs is "unstainable" of its own accord. (I think you mean indefensible) It fails to even meet the narrow objectives of improving cycling safety. Let alone meeting the wider cost-benefit objectives.

The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.
human909
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:16 am

human909 wrote:MHLs is "unstainable" of its own accord. (I think you mean indefensible) It fails to even meet the narrow objectives of improving cycling safety. Let alone meeting the wider cost-benefit objectives.

The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.

Riding my bike in Italian and French cities I am seeing how true this is.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20396
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:07 am

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:I feel a certain deja vu. Sadly, this argument has not improved with age. No, the lack of some other hypothetical "better" law doesn't make MHLs morally unsustainable. Just like it didn't last time this came up.


MHLs is "unstainable" of its own accord. (I think you mean indefensible) It fails to even meet the narrow objectives of improving cycling safety. Let alone meeting the wider cost-benefit objectives.

The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.

Oh, I don't know. I hear tell they're poking along all right in the NT. :wink: My point, though, was just that all this carry-on about life jackets and helmets for motorists and vaccination and fatty food and whatnot is a non sequitur.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby queequeg » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:56 am

high_tea wrote:
human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:I feel a certain deja vu. Sadly, this argument has not improved with age. No, the lack of some other hypothetical "better" law doesn't make MHLs morally unsustainable. Just like it didn't last time this came up.


MHLs is "unstainable" of its own accord. (I think you mean indefensible) It fails to even meet the narrow objectives of improving cycling safety. Let alone meeting the wider cost-benefit objectives.

The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.

Oh, I don't know. I hear tell they're poking along all right in the NT. :wink: My point, though, was just that all this carry-on about life jackets and helmets for motorists and vaccination and fatty food and whatnot is a non sequitur.


Yup, but the same arguments used to introduce MHL could one day result in MHL for other equally "dangerous activities", like toddlers learning to walk.

http://www.thudguard.com.au/

Image
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '09 Electra Townie Original 21D
User avatar
queequeg
 
Posts: 3784
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:09 am

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:14 am

Sigh. No, regulation of pedestrians is another matter entirely. For the same reasons as last time and the time before that.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:26 am

high_tea wrote:My point, though, was just that all this carry-on about life jackets and helmets for motorists and vaccination and fatty food and whatnot is a non sequitur.

How do you figure that. They are all about taking away people's freedom in the interest of safety.

high_tea wrote:Sigh. No, regulation of pedestrians is another matter entirely. For the same reasons as last time and the time before that.

Every time somebody enjoys a logic parallel you say it is "another matter entirely". The fact that it isn't. The debate of freedom vs public good is not a new debate. Pretending that MHLs sits in a unique frame of benefits vs costs is a little childish.
human909
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:41 am

I object specifically to the idea of regulating pedestrians. That's the special case, not MHLs.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Torpedo 7 Cycling Express
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

cron