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 simonn » Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:55 pm

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:Because they are not cycling injuries. You do not get sick from not cycling. You get sick through not exercising. There are plenty of ways of exercising that do not involve cycling, not least the default method of human locomotion... walking.


This is a tired and nonsensical argument. The same argument could be used to say that running, swimming or any specific exercise is a not a net benefit to your health. :roll: Of course increase in one activity has a substitution effect for all individuals and that will vary depending on each individual .


No it's not. Defining health problems as cycling injuries, as per Xplora's post I quote again below, when the victim(?) does not normally cycle is nonsensical.

Xplora wrote:the poor health outcomes from inactivity are ignored because they don't present as cyclist injuries


Again, that is because they are not the same. Inactivity != cycling injury. Cycling is a mere subset of Activity.

human909 wrote:But assuming that increasing cycling participation would have no effect on total exercise is plainly absurd.


I do not believe you are addressing my argument.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

by BNA » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:00 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby Xplora » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:00 pm

simonn wrote:
Xplora wrote:the poor health outcomes from inactivity are ignored because they don't present as cyclist injuries


Again, that is because they are not the same. Inactivity != cycling injury. Cycling is a mere subset of Activity.

So... if we can accept your point, where to from there? I want a solution proposal. Resistancia is a wonderful rallying cry, but it doesn't help fix the problem.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6992
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:02 pm

Sorry simon. I have no idea what your going on about now.

I'll to simplify things for you. 1. Cycling provides health benefits. 2. Mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling.
human909
 
Posts: 5618
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:10 pm

I believe the point is that it depends what people do instead of cycling. If they drink corn syrup and smoke black-market rolling tobacco while driving around in old, unregistered cars it's a bad thing. If they walk instead, no harm done. Take CityCycle. I was a user for a while. When I gave it away, I walked instead. The net effect on my activity level: zero. So the issue, if you are worried about public health, is effects on active transport uptake, which is not the same thing as cycling uptake.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby simonn » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:23 pm

human909 wrote:Sorry simon. I have no idea what your going on about now.


Clearly.

human909 wrote:I'll to simplify things for you. 1. Cycling provides health benefits. 2. Mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling.


I already understand this point.

I shall ELI^KYF:

Cycling is only one of many kinds of exercise. A statement along the lines of "injury/sickness/illness due to inactivity is the same as a cycling injury" is utter nonsense.

Xplora wrote:I want a solution proposal


Better cycle facilities. Better PT. More expensive/harder to find car parking. Areas with higher than average levels of cycling also have better than average PT. Even in Australian and USAian cities.

I have never seen any evidence that a high level of utility cycling has an impact on public health other than what essentially amounts to "well, it should do."
Last edited by simonn on Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:25 pm

high_tea wrote:I believe the point is that it depends what people do instead of cycling. If they drink corn syrup and smoke black-market rolling tobacco while driving around in old, unregistered cars it's a bad thing. If they walk instead, no harm done. Take CityCycle. I was a user for a while. When I gave it away, I walked instead. The net effect on my activity level: zero.

Yes that is all understood. And it would be foolish think that a general increase in cycling participation does not increase the total exercise time.

high_tea wrote:So the issue, if you are worried about public health, is effects on active transport uptake, which is not the same thing as cycling uptake.

No, the issue here is MHLs. That is what I am worried about. That is the topic at hand. The negative health consequences of MHLs are just one of the many reasons why MHLs should not be in place.

simonn wrote:I have never seen any evidence that a high level of utility cycling has an impact on public health other than what essentially amounts to "well, it should do."

Open your eyes mate. You wont need a measuring tape to observe the waste line differences. And there is plenty of evidence linking waistlines and health. :wink:



I am positively shocked how much time you guys spend effectively arguing that cycling is not a healthy activity. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 5618
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:31 pm

human909 wrote:Yes that is all understood. And it would be foolish think that a general increase in cycling participation does not increase the total exercise time.


Depends entirely on what it is replacing. For instance, in Manly, a lot of people ride to the wharf to catch the ferry. I suspect that they would get more exercise if they walked, because cycling is extraordinarily efficient, particularly on the flat.

human909 wrote:No, the issue here is MHLs. That is what I am worried about. That is the topic at hand. The negative health consequences of MHLs are just one of the many reasons why MHLs should not be in place.


I suspect that the health effects on MHLs are heavily overstated.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:43 pm

simonn wrote:Depends entirely on what it is replacing. For instance, in Manly, a lot of people ride to the wharf to catch the ferry. I suspect that they would get more exercise if they walked, because cycling is extraordinarily efficient, particularly on the flat.

But on the whole increasing cycling participation will be increasing the time people spend active.

human909 wrote:I suspect that the health effects on MHLs are heavily overstated.

And the health effects of riding helmetless are heavily overstated. Overall the debate can swing either way as the research shows. But to argue that MHL save lives is not in line with the facts.

So why are you so keen to argue for something that reduces cycling? Why are you so enthusiastic about denying Australia cyclists freedom that the rest of the world takes for granted?
human909
 
Posts: 5618
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:09 pm

human909 wrote:
I am positively shocked how much time you guys spend effectively arguing that cycling is not a healthy activity. :roll:


Strawman. Cycling is a good thing, but it doesn't necessarily follow that non-cycling is bad. I'm appalled that I have to make such a trite statement but I'm not surprised, not any more.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:34 pm

I'm sorry. Where has anybody here said that "not cycling" is bad? Please where?
human909
 
Posts: 5618
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:08 pm

human909 wrote:I'm sorry. Where has anybody here said that "not cycling" is bad? Please where?

You did. In this very thread, on this very page. HTH. HAND.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:32 pm

Boris has a few things to say about helmets and bikeshare

Having successfully implemented one of the world's most successful bike schemes in London without helmets, Mr Johnson said yesterday Melbourne should do the same.

He warned that enforcing a head protection policy threatened to kill off the initiative.

"It's not how we would have done it," he said.

"Obviously, it's up to Melbourne to decide what they want to do, but we took a very clear decision that it would be counterproductive . . .

"I wanted to put the village back into London and create an environment where people felt safe cycling and safe cycling in numbers."

He said evidence had suggested that while helmets could prevent some injuries, in the worst accidents in London, "nine times out of 10" a helmet wouldn't make a difference.


Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/national-ne ... z2cbeUvoR3
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19777
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby lturner » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:54 pm

I don't see how anyone can credibly deny that helmet laws destroy bike share schemes. All the evidence shows that bike share cannot work in places with helmet laws and the people involved in successful bike share systems acknowledge that.
lturner
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am

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

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:20 pm

lturner wrote:I don't see how anyone can credibly deny that helmet laws destroy bike share schemes. All the evidence shows that bike share cannot work in places with helmet laws and the people involved in successful bike share systems acknowledge that.


Some people can 'credibly deny' that the earth is round.

The amazing tenacity of people stand by their beliefs it both a blessing and a curse to the development of mankind While many continue to deny evolution, the holocaust, or global warming it doesn't surprise me that some deny the effect helmet laws have on bike share schemes. In acknowledgement of this truism, I personally endeavour to keep an open mind. I find that the debate and discussion in this thread have as much to say about this tenacity than the actual topic.


I know why I am passionate about this topic. Its because I have seen how cycling can be better. What confuses me is why some people are so passionate about telling others how to live their lives.
human909
 
Posts: 5618
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby ldrcycles » Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:19 am

The thing that has stopped my wife and I from using share bikes in Brisbane and Melbourne wasn't the need for a helmet, it was the fact that we couldn't just swipe a credit card and take a bike, as far as I could tell the process required registering online, which we obviously couldn't do on the side of the road without a "smart"phone, which neither of us had at the time. Just my experience.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
User avatar
ldrcycles
 
Posts: 7365
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: Kin Kin, Queensland

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

Postby simonn » Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:52 am

human909 wrote:So why are you so keen to argue for something that reduces cycling? Why are you so enthusiastic about denying Australia cyclists freedom that the rest of the world takes for granted?


I'm not. i am simply pointing out bogus arguments.

I simply do not think that MHLs are as big a barrier as they are made out to be (bike share schemes aside - for the same reason that child seats are a pain when it comes to taxis, rental, borrowing mate's cars etc.)

The main barrier is cars. More/better PT and cycle facilities will go much further in both increasing cycling and getting rid of MHLs (I put forward Manly as an example). Most of the arguments put forward for repealing MHLs just make advocates come across like fruit loops - and put people who should be on their side off listening to them.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Xplora » Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:11 am

The bikeshare failures show that improved infrastructure and availability will not resolve the volume of cycling issue if there is a MHL in place. I must laugh at the idea that it could, but we won't get a test case to prove you right because good cycle infrastructure goes hand in hand with bike friendly policy - MHL is not bike friendly policy. The most amusing thing is that in this chicken and egg situation a path network costs millions to prove you right but MHL repeal costs almost nothing. I agree that your proposal could work except it is impossible to prove because of the appalling levels of PT and path infrastructure for 90% of the population. So basically the ludicrous position appears to belong to you. Billions of PT isn't sitting in the budget pipeline. But a tweak to the road rules? We would need them both to have your vision succeed.
Cars are the problem I agree but your politics and mine can't agree if you think you can strip the car away from people because it is basic freedom to be able to commute a family as you choose. I know some terrible domestic situations where the wife's inability to drive has caused struggles for her.

So. Repeal an ineffective unjust law, or crush the freedoms of the majority, spend billions on PT and cycle paths, without any guarantee of social or health improvements? Remember, no country has great paths and MHL at the same time. You can work out what seems lunacy.
Last edited by Xplora on Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6992
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby Ross » Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:13 am

Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4102
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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

Postby simonn » Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:18 am

Xplora wrote:The bikeshare failures do show that improved infrastructure and availability will resolve the issue if there is a MHL in place. I must laugh at the idea that it could, but we won't get a test case because good cycle infrastructure goes hand in hand with bike friendly policy - MHL is not bike friendly policy. The amusing thing is that in this chicken and egg situation a path network costs millions to prove you right but MHL repeal costs almost nothing. I agree that your proposal could work except it is impossible to prove because of the appalling levels of PT and path infrastructure for 90% of the population. So basically the ludicrous position appears to belong to you. Billions of PT isn't sitting in the budget pipeline. But a tweak to the road rules? We would need them both to have your vision succeed.


All you need to do is look at cities and towns around the world, the vast majority of which have never had MHLs, and examine the impact of increased number of/better cycle facilities.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:14 am

simonn wrote:All you need to do is look at cities and towns around the world, the vast majority of which have never had MHLs, and examine the impact of increased number of/better cycle facilities.


Nobody is disputing the benefits of good infrastructure.
human909
 
Posts: 5618
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:41 pm

simonn wrote:[All you need to do is look at cities and towns around the world, the vast majority of which have never had MHLs, and examine the impact of increased number of/better cycle facilities.


Yes, just take a look at Pisa. Plenty of cars about, but restricted. Lots of cyclists as well. But there is very little in the way of bicycle infrastructure at all, apart from some 'pedonale' zones. No one wears a helmet of course.

Image

Image



And they do have a working bikeshare scheme.
Last edited by il padrone on Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19777
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Xplora » Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:00 pm

simonn wrote:All you need to do is look at cities and towns around the world, the vast majority of which have never had MHLs, and examine the impact of increased number of/better cycle facilities.

Address the whole post thanks. This comment already had a response, and I'm glad you agree with me. So far it seems that your plan to improve cycling is to ensure that all avenues that are cheap and effective are rejected, and to impose unrealistic and expensive requirements to make you happy. Why not mandate a weekly century for anyone riding a bike? That's as likely as getting billions set aside for PT and paths in the next election cycle.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6992
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:37 pm

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 6701571898

LOOK AT THAT APPALLING CRIME COMMITTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT BY A FOREIGNER! :shock:
Image

LONDON Mayor Boris Johnson jumped on a bike and zipped down Spring St without a care - or a helmet. With his mop of fair hair waving in the wind, Johnson didn't even realise he was breaking the law as he straddled the blue council bicycle and took off. He squeezed past a packed tram and pulled off a sweeping U-turn in the kind of spontaneous display that has earned him global appeal. London's Mayor showed remorse after he realised he was legally obliged to protect his head. His only hope, he admitted, was that his mate, Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, would understand.

"I didn't see the sign," he said. "I hope we will be all right with the authorities."

Having successfully implemented one of the world's most successful bike schemes in London without helmets, Mr Johnson said yesterday Melbourne should do the same. He warned that enforcing a head protection policy threatened to kill off the initiative. "It's not how we would have done it," he said. "Obviously, it's up to Melbourne to decide what they want to do, but we took a very clear decision that it would be counterproductive . . . "I wanted to put the village back into London and create an environment where people felt safe cycling and safe cycling in numbers."

He said evidence had suggested that while helmets could prevent some injuries, in the worst accidents in London, "nine times out of 10" a helmet wouldn't make a difference. In Victoria to be a keynote speaker at the Melbourne Writers Festival, Mr Johnson said Melbourne had all the ingredients to become a cosmopolitan hub. "I think Australia is the most urbanised country in the world and more and more of us will be living in cities over the next 50 years," he said. "But people want cities that are clean, green and which have a village feel."
human909
 
Posts: 5618
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby DavidS » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:43 am

il Padrone I can see heaps of bicycle infrastructure there, they're called roads ;)

Al these arguments for bike infrastructure, it's already there, we have roads for road vehicles like cars, trucks and . . . bikes.

Boris, well done, I love that he just grabbed a bike and went for a ride. Helmet? Unnecessary, cycling just isn't that dangerous.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby VRE » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:43 am

DavidS wrote:il Padrone I can see heaps of bicycle infrastructure there, they're called roads ;)

Al these arguments for bike infrastructure, it's already there, we have roads for road vehicles like cars, trucks and . . . bikes.

Boris, well done, I love that he just grabbed a bike and went for a ride. Helmet? Unnecessary, cycling just isn't that dangerous.

DS

The problem with roads is that they're designed for motor vehicles, and bicycles are just an afterthought. Which is why we get stuck with ridiculously-small bicycle lanes (those on Collins St in Melbourne one of the more ridiculous examples).
User avatar
VRE
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:14 am
Location: Ringwood North, VIC, Australia

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