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 warthog1 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:15 am

RonK wrote:Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Or the comment at the end of it?


That was a bit inconvenient wasn't it :lol:

This thread has some good laughs along with the heavy dose of BS :mrgreen:
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 3994
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

by BNA » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:09 am

BNA
 

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

Postby citywomble » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:09 am

Yeh,

But did you notice one of the 'other articles of interest' which was not an April Fool:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen ... lmet-claim

That one is well worth reading and actually fairly well refutes one of the prime arguements earlier in this thread related to the recycled 85% statistic which has been the base of so many other reports. The same methodology for the 85% reduction in head injuries shows helmets also reduce all other injuries by 77% - really? Just shows how useless those statistics were, yet they have been cited as the basis for most other pro MHL 'reports'.

How about the dutch report that says (by implication) helmet wearers have 13 times more accidents?

MHL, perhaps it's actually an acronym for the Most Harmful Law that has actually damaged cycling, the health of many potential cyclists and allowed the harmfull car lobby to thrive while making harmless cyclists pay for almost useless protection under the guise of safety.
citywomble
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:25 am

RonK wrote:Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Or the comment at the end of it?


Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.

:oops: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Darned April Fool's Day web-pages, catching you out loooong after the event :|


It was hoped by the Yorkshire organisers that some teams may consider wearing flat caps instead of helmets, to help inspire a generation to get back on their bikes. One company has even specially designed ‘flatter’ cap, with enhanced aerodynamics, but retaining the sun and rain repelling peak which may be so necessary if July 2014’s weather goes the way of previous years.


LOVE it :lol: :lol: Might need to get in early and order one for riding my vintage single-speed.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20166
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby warthog1 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:08 am

il padrone wrote:
RonK wrote:Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Or the comment at the end of it?


Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.

:oops: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Darned April Fool's Day web-pages, catching you out loooong after the event :|


It was hoped by the Yorkshire organisers that some teams may consider wearing flat caps instead of helmets, to help inspire a generation to get back on their bikes. One company has even specially designed ‘flatter’ cap, with enhanced aerodynamics, but retaining the sun and rain repelling peak which may be so necessary if July 2014’s weather goes the way of previous years.


LOVE it :lol: :lol: Might need to get in early and order one for riding my vintage single-speed.


Kudos :)
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 3994
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

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

Postby citywomble » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:55 am

Il Padrone,

It's funny that now your back posting I am more inclined to post replies.

You said:
Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.


I suspect that is the reason why so many of your posts are annoying in that there is a disconnect from what you are commenting about. If you are going to be so 'authoritative' about what you read then at least be proficient about it and not selective.

Perhaps you too are suffering from Confirmation Bias, it can be cured - the antidote is due diligence.
citywomble
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:40 pm

citywomble wrote:Il Padrone,

It's funny that now your back posting I am more inclined to post replies.

You said:
Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.


I suspect that is the reason why so many of your posts are annoying in that there is a disconnect from what you are commenting about. If you are going to be so 'authoritative' about what you read then at least be proficient about it and not selective.

Perhaps you too are suffering from Confirmation Bias, it can be cured - the antidote is due diligence.


Now you're annoying me :x

I make one error in not reading fully a 'trick' page and you go out and damn ALL my comments with this ?????

Give a bloke a break.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20166
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby lycraless » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:48 pm

"It is very telling that up to 2004 that’s 14 years after 1990 when it was made mandatory to wear a bike helmet in Victoria, that they were racing without helmets.

So I would say if they are not compelled to wear a helmet in a high risk-racing environment then why am I compelled to wear one to just ride down the street?"

Its even stranger.
The only transcript of parliamentary proceedings available on the subject I have found so far has been the ACT's "debate" that brought in MHL there and they actually put in provision for exemptions for competitions.
lycraless
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:17 am

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

Postby traveldreamer » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:50 am

lycraless wrote:"It is very telling that up to 2004 that’s 14 years after 1990 when it was made mandatory to wear a bike helmet in Victoria, that they were racing without helmets.

So I would say if they are not compelled to wear a helmet in a high risk-racing environment then why am I compelled to wear one to just ride down the street?"

Its even stranger.
The only transcript of parliamentary proceedings available on the subject I have found so far has been the ACT's "debate" that brought in MHL there and they actually put in provision for exemptions for competitions.


Interesting may we have a link to this ?
traveldreamer
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 12:10 pm

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

Postby Summernight » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:54 pm

I found it interesting that the horse world also has an ongoing debate about wearing helmets when riding horses.

This is one blogger's view posted on one of the bigger equestrian magazine sites: http://www.equestrianlife.com.au/articl ... met-Debate

(I know it isn't compulsory for horse-riders like it currently is for cyclists)
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby human909 » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:48 pm

So does the rock climbing world and the skiing world and a host of other sports and activities. :D

I think its great to have the debate, the discussion and the choice. Personally I normally choose to wear a helmet when rock climbing and skiing.

What is not great is denying people choice through legislation. :idea:
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:13 pm

The best plan is simply to ensure that helmets are held to standards (the Australian standard isn't a bad one, but it would be smarter to just use the Snell one since it's just not that a difference) so people can rely on a certain level of protection, but ultimately let someone decide if they need the hat or not. If you are not epileptic, you can reasonably foresee the likelihood of a prang by your riding style.

Helmets for peds and car passengers if you aren't allowed to decide. A lot more people with braindeath on foot or in a car than on bikes (as a raw number). Cycling is not a magically dangerous activity versus everything else.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby high_tea » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Xplora wrote:Helmets for peds and car passengers if you aren't allowed to decide. A lot more people with braindeath on foot or in a car than on bikes (as a raw number). Cycling is not a magically dangerous activity versus everything else.


This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:33 pm

high_tea wrote:This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.

Which premise of the argument do you dispute?

That the risk of those activities aren't comparable?
Or that laws should be consistent?
Or that helmets wouldn't improve safety of pedestrians and motorists?

Please inform us why this is argument is so "spectacularly bad".

(Or do you believe that minority activities should be held to different standards from mainstream activities? Or do should the risk of cycling be considered higher simply because some types of cycling are higher risk?)
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:58 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.

Which premise of the argument do you dispute?

That the risk of those activities aren't comparable?
Or that laws should be consistent?
Or that helmets wouldn't improve safety of pedestrians and motorists?

Please inform us why this is argument is so "spectacularly bad".

(Or do you believe that minority activities should be held to different standards from mainstream activities? Or do should the risk of cycling be considered higher simply because some types of cycling are higher risk?)

More to the point, why do you believe the sort of pedestrian regulation being mooted is remotely acceptable?
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:45 pm

high_tea wrote:
human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.

Which premise of the argument do you dispute?................

More to the point, why do you believe the sort of pedestrian regulation being mooted is remotely acceptable?


But don't you see, that is exactly the point. No-one here is seriously arguing for pedestrian helmets, just like we are not supportive of MHL for cyclists.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20166
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 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:14 pm

il padrone wrote:But don't you see, that is exactly the point. No-one here is seriously arguing for pedestrian helmets, just like we are not supportive of MHL for cyclists.
[/quote]

The two aren't remotely equivalent.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:34 pm

high_tea wrote:The two aren't remotely equivalent.

Yes. Silly us. Nor is motoring, horse riding, skiing, rock climbing or wake boarding. But cycling of course that needs compulsory helmets. :roll:

Please explain to us high tea why cycling is so unique that it requires Mandatory Helmet Laws? Also what is so unique about Australia that mean that they are required? Why does cycling need to be coddled?
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:07 pm

high_tea wrote:
il padrone wrote:But don't you see, that is exactly the point. No-one here is seriously arguing for pedestrian helmets, just like we are not supportive of MHL for cyclists.


The two aren't remotely equivalent.


Strange then how they seemed to be very equivalent in the frequent 'zone pedale' of Italian towns' ??

Image

Image



And, yes these same cyclists also ride on the roads of the crowded cities, in amongst the traffic..... BUT, not a helmet in sight :D
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20166
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 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:44 pm

human909 wrote:Also what is so unique about Australia that mean that they are required? Why does cycling need to be coddled?


Out here it was a conspiracy of control. The elites (RACS, RACV, MUARC, politicians) lobbied for it, to get "those renegade bike riders under control". They used spurious data which ignored any considerations (raised at the time by BV) that there would be a negative impact upon a sustainable, low-impact transport mode.

It was all backed up by some 'do-gooder' cyclists who thought if some cyclists use helmets for their safety or confidence it must be good to make sure that all cyclists do. :roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20166
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 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:03 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:The two aren't remotely equivalent.

Yes. Silly us. Nor is motoring, horse riding, skiing, rock climbing or wake boarding. But cycling of course that needs compulsory helmets. :roll:

Please explain to us high tea why cycling is so unique that it requires Mandatory Helmet Laws? Also what is so unique about Australia that mean that they are required? Why does cycling need to be coddled?


Dunno, you'd better ask whoever said that. I don't recall saying anything about horse climbing or water boarding or any other such thing.

EDIT: I do contend that regulating pedestrians is a much bigger deal than regulating cyclists. In light of this, I find the repeated cries of "why not make pedestrians wear helmets" ridiculous and tiresome. Not quite as tiresome as demands to defend things I never said, but still.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Percrime » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Water boarding is different to wake boarding. If you require a demonstration let me know.

Seriously what is this obsession with "If I like wearing a helmet then all other cyclists MUST"? I dont remotely get that. I could care less if you ride a BMC or a BSA with or without turban. See through nicks only bother me if on blokes.. and then to tell the truth not heaps. I couldn't care if you guys wear tweed or tarten or SS or fixie. Although if I see someone riding my mates stolen Paconi trackie their next ride will be very very differerent. But overall... some of you guys seem to care way more about my well being than.. (and I spent the day in hospital with a mate) I am ever going to care about yours.
Percrime
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:55 pm

Percrime wrote:Water boarding is different to wake boarding. If you require a demonstration let me know.


Yeah, that was a play on words. Although, when I've tried wakeboarding it amounts to being dragged facefirst through the water behind a powerboat. So it's closer to waterboarding than might at first appear. If you do it all wrong, anyway.

PS: I'm glad you left horse climbing alone. I'm not sure what it means and I'm not sure I want to find out...
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Percrime » Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:09 pm

I left it alone assuming you did know what it meant.. and you know.. I try and leave sensitive stuff alone
Percrime
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:46 pm

high_tea wrote:PS: I'm glad you left horse climbing alone. I'm not sure what it means and I'm not sure I want to find out...


Silly goat !!

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20166
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:58 pm

high_tea wrote:EDIT: I do contend that regulating pedestrians is a much bigger deal than regulating cyclists. In light of this, I find the repeated cries of "why not make pedestrians wear helmets" ridiculous and tiresome.


The cry of "why not make pedestrians wear helmets" is MEANT to be ridiculous! :idea: The hyperbole is used to display the ridiculousness of the MHLs for cyclists. But of course you completely ignore that.

high_tea wrote:Not quite as tiresome as demands to defend things I never said, but still.

So you don't believe Australia should have MHLs? Great! Otherwise stop being evasive.
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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