Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby Mulger bill » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:32 pm
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?
London Boy 29/12/2011
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby Xplora » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:45 pm
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.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:27 pm
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.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?
-
- Posts: 1669
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:55 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby Baldy » Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:56 pm
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby human909 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:15 am
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?high_tea wrote:I've heard justifying this ridiculous stance over the years.
I find it odd that you see this as ridiculous when it is actually entirely normal in the rest of the world.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:05 am
I was talking about attitudes to footwear.human909 wrote: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?high_tea wrote:I've heard justifying this ridiculous stance over the years.
I find it odd that you see this as ridiculous when it is actually entirely normal in the rest of the world.
- Howzat
- Posts: 850
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby Howzat » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:22 am
...around here, you can't change minds and you can't change subjects.high_tea wrote:I was talking about attitudes to footwear.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:37 am
LOL. I believe I'll pay that...Howzat wrote:...around here, you can't change minds and you can't change subjects.high_tea wrote:I was talking about attitudes to footwear.
- KonaCommuter
- Posts: 978
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:28 pm
- Location: Brisbane Northside
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby KonaCommuter » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:27 pm
Bare-headed cyclists at 'some fault' for injuries http://m.thelocal.de/society/20130617-5 ... qus_thread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:49 pm
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby citywomble » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:27 pm
Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?But the judge ruled that the injuries she suffered were 20 percent the fault of the cyclist for not wearing a helmet
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.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby human909 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:40 pm
Great point.citywomble wrote:Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?
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.
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby citywomble » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:18 pm
Why not just as appropriate, practical or sensible for car drivers, or pedestrians for that matter?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.
Even at 252 pages it seems we have a lot more potential for 'mass debating' here.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby human909 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:56 pm
I was just stating the reason. Doesn't mean I agree with it.citywomble wrote:Why not just as appropriate, practical or sensible for car drivers, or pedestrians for that matter?
-
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby citywomble » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:35 am
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.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby Xplora » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:21 am
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.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:14 am
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.citywomble wrote:Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?But the judge ruled that the injuries she suffered were 20 percent the fault of the cyclist for not wearing a helmet
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:40 pm
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.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.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby human909 » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:15 pm
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.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.
The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby il padrone » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:16 am
Riding my bike in Italian and French cities I am seeing how true this is.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.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:07 am
Oh, I don't know. I hear tell they're poking along all right in the NT. 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.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.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.
The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.
- queequeg
- Posts: 6485
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby queequeg » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:56 am
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.high_tea wrote:Oh, I don't know. I hear tell they're poking along all right in the NT. 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.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.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.
The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.
http://www.thudguard.com.au/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:14 am
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby human909 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:26 am
How do you figure that. They are all about taking away people's freedom in the interest of safety.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.
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.high_tea wrote:Sigh. No, regulation of pedestrians is another matter entirely. For the same reasons as last time and the time before that.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:41 am
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.