Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '09 Electra Townie Original 21D
Sigh. No, regulation of pedestrians is another matter entirely. For the same reasons as last time and the time before that.
How do you figure that. They are all about taking away people's freedom in the interest of safety.
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.
I object specifically to the idea of regulating pedestrians. That's the special case, not MHLs.
Great. I'm glad the anti regulation of pedestrians has your support. It is a pity that you don't show the same support to cyclists being forced to wear helmets.
I honestly can't follow the logic that pedestrians enjoy an unalienable human right when utilising public roads, yet cyclists do not, given the risk factors and injury rates.
I dislike a lot of laws, but I can accept them if they are equitable - much in the same way that I can accept whoever forms Government in September, despite being upset and frustrated by that. MHL is garbage, but if you forced everyone to wear the headgear, then I'd accept that its not unjustified discrimination.
Equality is the key.
The idea that walking around should be regulated as little as possible is controversial now? Seriously?
From what I can see there are alot rules regulating people walking around our roads. Almost as many as there are for cyclists.
Well, seeing as they ignore red men while head down in smartphone land on a regular basis, why not make the practice a legal as well as social norm?
I like a good analogy, it offers a chance to broaden the philosophical debate while maintaining the central theme.
"Is it time for pedestrians to be registered and made to wear PPE?" DIscuss...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
Nope. About a dozen actually, cf nineteen or so cyclist-specific ones and a couple of hundred more that apply to vehicles in general.
They are already registered, they just don't know it. You haven't worked in customer service for any organisations with 20 million customers before have you?
HT, I'm incredulous that we are considering regulating walking, but 909 is right. We already DO on the "road related areas". What stretch is it to add the Pedestrian Protective Equipment? The danger to cyclists is cars, so put your effort into the cars and teach people to share better. Don't put the Emperor's New Magic Hat on cyclists and insist that it's acceptable when it is linked to greater danger for riders. We are DYING out there despite helmets because cyclists are a vulnerable target taking a denormalised transport option.
"Is it time for pedestrians to be licensed like dogs, with little discs hanging from their (mandatory)dog collar, and made to wear PVC? Discuss, ideally with pictures."
EDIT: Family-friendly pictures, natch.
This is completely nuts. Even by the standards of this thread.
I agree. It is all absurd. Just like the justifications for mandatory helmet laws.
I am sure I am not alone in beginning to despair you will ever see reason.
Do you actually read all of what you write about?
Idiot, The NT is not an example of how they're getting along alright with MHLs. They have removed MHL for much of cycling so they are evidence that removing them does actually reverse the reduction in cycling brought about by MHLs.
We need to start thinking of potential cyclists as enhanced pedestrians as typified in the acronym POBSO. Given its the same person either walking or enhanced walking as a POBSO, the issue of MHLs being imposed on one form is ridiculous.
A motor vehicle is very different as it requires a licence (to operate registered dangerous equipment). Both walking AND cycling do not require licensing or registration and are often interacting with each other with the same injury risk. Why apply PPE to just one? Please provide a reasoned argument.
Well now here's something interesting in amongst the ad hominem and bizarre mental contortions. It almost sounds like you want to declare a bicycle a WRD. That would, as I understand the law, dispense with the requirement to wear a helmet. Among a lot of other things, but okay, it's worth talking about.
Came across this study by Uni of NSW on effectiveness of helmets.
"Crashing without a helmet exposes the head to accelerations and forces – or loads – up to 9.5 times greater than with a helmet and so greatly increases the risk of head, skull and brain injury, according to a detailed biomechanical study published in the journal Traffic Injury Prevention
“Our findings confirm that bicycle helmets certified to AS/NZS 2063 do indeed work as intended and are effective in reducing linear and angular head accelerations, as well as impact force,” says the lead author of the study, Dr Andrew McIntosh...[snip]...
Dr McIntosh is an adjunct Associate Professor at UNSW’s Transport and Road Safety Research Group and the Monash Injury Research Institute at Monash University...[snip]...
“When you look at injury risk, an unprotected head is likely to suffer concussion even dropping only half a metre while you are stationary,” says Dr McIntosh. “As the height of the drop and the horizontal speed increase, so does the risk of skull and brain injury.”
“We found that a helmeted head, however, is protected against serious injury until the most severe impacts in our study: even with a drop of 1.5 m and a speed of 25 km/h the helmet has an important protective effect.”
coffeandwine - I don't think it's the effectiveness of a bike helmet that's in dispute, it's the part about being "forced" to wear one that seems to be the issue.
Who is online