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 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: 300
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

by BNA » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:21 am

BNA
 

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.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5567
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: 1265
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: 1265
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: 4723
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: 18150
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: 1265
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: 2750
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: 1265
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: 4723
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: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:51 am

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. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:35 pm

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. :idea:

Equality is the key.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5567
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 20, 2013 8:38 pm

The idea that walking around should be regulated as little as possible is controversial now? Seriously?
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:42 pm

high_tea wrote: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.
human909
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:47 pm

high_tea wrote:I object specifically to the idea of regulating pedestrians. That's the special case, not MHLs.

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... :wink:
...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: 25548
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:55 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote: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.


Nope. About a dozen actually, cf nineteen or so cyclist-specific ones and a couple of hundred more that apply to vehicles in general.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Xplora » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:58 pm

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.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5567
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 20, 2013 9:03 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
high_tea wrote:I object specifically to the idea of regulating pedestrians. That's the special case, not MHLs.

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... :wink:


"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.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:15 pm

Xplora wrote: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?


This is completely nuts. Even by the standards of this thread.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:17 pm

high_tea wrote: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.
human909
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby citywomble » Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:06 am

High tea,

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?

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.


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.

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


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.
citywomble
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

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

Postby high_tea » Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:10 am

citywomble wrote:High tea,

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?

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.


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.

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


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.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby coffeeandwine » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:54 pm

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.”
Image
Merida 903 from the LBS; Diesel engine
User avatar
coffeeandwine
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:06 pm
Location: Buninyong, Vic

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

Postby Ross » Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:39 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3668
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JohnJoyner, Scott_C



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