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 outnabike » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:41 am

I can see everyone including pedestrians having to wear a helmet to be safe from .....BASE jumping from city buildings..... :D
Bugger , there is always a downside to freedoms .
outnabike
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

by BNA » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:18 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby outnabike » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:18 pm

This was posted on another thread, but just have a look at the text from the mandatory wearers point of view.

"A push bike slammed into my car head-on, throwing the non-helmet wearing rider onto the bonnet, windscreen and then footpath." And after all that , the bloke is standing there and ok.
And all done with out a helmet.
Can't you just see the crowd saying (if he had a helmet) "lucky for him, the helmet saved his life". I prefer that the rider was wearing a helmet in that sort of accident, but just posing the obvious reverse type of thinking. :D


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... 6723158156
outnabike
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

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

Postby human909 » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:31 pm

outnabike wrote:This was posted on another thread, but just have a look at the text from the mandatory wearers point of view.

"A push bike slammed into my car head-on, throwing the non-helmet wearing rider onto the bonnet, windscreen and then footpath." And after all that , the bloke is standing there and ok.
And all done with out a helmet.
Can't you just see the crowd saying (if he had a helmet) "lucky for him, the helmet saved his life". I prefer that the rider was wearing a helmet in that sort of accident, but just posing the obvious reverse type of thinking. :D


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... 6723158156


Also seems another case of GREEN car lights at the same time as a RED bike like. Bi directional lanes are a recipe for disaster. This incident is just another example.
human909
 
Posts: 4726
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Fri Nov 29, 2013 7:57 am

Two months it lay asleep, but the dead shall rise :)

Today the QLD enquiry into bike safety comes out, and should be recommending helmetless on footpaths and on PSPs. I'm stunned that Emerson can be skeptical about removing the law (given that the majority of the world follows this practice), but I get the feeling that most of the time Committees get what they want with these things (otherwise why would they bother).
Xplora
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR


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

Postby human909 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:59 pm

Xplora wrote:but I get the feeling that most of the time Committees get what they want with these things (otherwise why would they bother).


You are more optimistic than I am. Look at what happened (or hasn't happened) with the 'Henry' tax review.
human909
 
Posts: 4726
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Fri Nov 29, 2013 2:06 pm

human909 wrote:
Xplora wrote:but I get the feeling that most of the time Committees get what they want with these things (otherwise why would they bother).


You are more optimistic than I am. Look at what happened (or hasn't happened) with the 'Henry' tax review.

Political content - there was a lot more than just the Henry review that failed to happen - we need to take into account the context of the failure to implement. I think this one might get somewhere because the Libs are on the NOSE up there when it comes to 2 wheels. This might be a good one to beat their chest over, and claim a victory for the little people. I don't care what their motivation for change is, I just want change! :lol:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby myforwik » Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:20 pm

The difference with an enquiry, in the way QLD do it, is that its led by and done by the MP's whote actually vote for the law and directly influence party policy.

If you look at the MP's, politically, they don't tend to get involved unless they have a good understanding that what they will find will be government poilcy. Opposition MP's get involved because otherwise - they basically have no political power (as there vote isn't going to count on the floor of parliament against a >50% government). So you end up with a bunch of MP's from both parties in the enquiry, and both parties supporting the recommendations. Some MP's in QLD have already said such and such recommendations *will* be implemented. Obviously they had already had this setup with LNP and Cambell Newman. (though it does look like some labor MP's snubbed it - did Desley Scott actually show up and do anything for the cycling enquiry? She was meant to be deputy chair!).

Compare that to the henry tax review. Basically no MP's involved. Government completely clueless as to what they were going to get out of it. Party completely undecided and divided. Party not even ready to implement the recommendations.

The cycling commision had pretty major MP's already pushed for fairly specific laws which most people already knew about.
myforwik
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm

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

Postby human909 » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:35 pm

Fair point.

Thanks for the insight! :D
human909
 
Posts: 4726
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Baldy » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:17 pm

Pssstt....hey, shhhh. AGF oppose any relaxation in MHL's, even for bike share schemes.

I was never here.
Baldy
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:55 pm

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

Postby Ken Ho » Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:31 am

Baldy wrote:Pssstt....hey, shhhh. AGF oppose any relaxation in MHL's, even for bike share schemes.

I was never here.


I see that as a plus, as they have pretty much entirely discredited themselves as an organization in recent times.
What purpose will they have if the 1.5m law gets passed ?

Ther might be a bunch of NGO drones looking for a new gig.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

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

Postby il padrone » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:07 pm

Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18157
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:25 am

A colleague's immediate response when I said I use my bicycle for almost all my local transport was "gee you are brave than me". :roll: This is from somebody who played competitive rugby until his mid forties!

Our government teaches us to be afraid of riding bicycles. And when that doesn't work, motorist either through their words or the intimidating actions do their best to put fear into cyclists.
human909
 
Posts: 4726
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby eldavo » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:24 pm

I just found this thorough article following the QLD cycling review.
http://theconversation.com/politics-tru ... mets-20973

Earlier today reading some SA reports on cycle fatalities profiles, the "time and place" seemed to be repeatedly supported by data.
I didn't ride for too many years before the MHL and suppose I'm conditioned to liking mine and would still use helmets for other comfort/PPE benefits like wearing clear glasses, but doesn't mean I can't support a smarter policy.
eldavo
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

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

Postby human909 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:38 pm

(From above)
"For a few hours, late last week, it looked like Queensland could become the first Australian state to start relaxing its strict bicycle helmet laws." Obviously the Northern Territory hasn't caught the attention of the writer. Travel around Darwin and helmetless cyclists are everywhere. Of course NT isn't technically a state, but that sort of misses the point.

Personally I've been riding a bit more without a helmet. Its been hot and my helmet it not always hanging off the bars. It has never been a deliberate decision but after I've locked the door and I'm wheeling out my bike and don't have my helmet then the decision is often easy. Still, the majority of the time I'm happy enough with my helmet. I'm not happy with the MHLs.
human909
 
Posts: 4726
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:23 pm

The quote from Emerson sums it up. He's talking out his blowhole - MHL research isn't climate change research. The science is not even close to being decided, and it's irrational to state that it is. The results of head impacts is not the only information to be considered.

Corruption in politics, bad policy making, deception of the electorate... there are many who would claim the research is decided in those areas, but I'm sure Emerson would try and convince you otherwise. It's gutless politics, refusing to do the right thing in favour of the popular wrong thing.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby eldavo » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:27 pm

human909 wrote:(From above)
"For a few hours, late last week, it looked like Queensland could become the first Australian state to start relaxing its strict bicycle helmet laws." Obviously the Northern Territory hasn't caught the attention of the writer. Travel around Darwin and helmetless cyclists are everywhere. Of course NT isn't technically a state, but that sort of misses the point.

He does compare to the NT as leading example of cycling participation with greatest women representation without any increase in the injury data being looked at.
eldavo
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:29 pm

Xplora wrote:The quote from Emerson sums it up. He's talking out his blowhole - MHL research isn't climate change research. The science is not even close to being decided, and it's irrational to state that it is. The results of head impacts is not the only information to be considered.

Corruption in politics, bad policy making, deception of the electorate... there are many who would claim the research is decided in those areas, but I'm sure Emerson would try and convince you otherwise. It's gutless politics, refusing to do the right thing in favour of the popular wrong thing.


Nah, he just made the same mistake that people on both sides of the debate make with monotonous regularity: conflating helmet efficacy (which is well settled) with helmet law efficacy, which isn't.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:44 pm

Yeah but helmets work at reducing head impacts :)
^
^
^
^
^
^
And you know head inuries happen in motor car collisions too :idea:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18157
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby simonn » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:38 am

high_tea wrote:
Xplora wrote:The quote from Emerson sums it up. He's talking out his blowhole - MHL research isn't climate change research. The science is not even close to being decided, and it's irrational to state that it is. The results of head impacts is not the only information to be considered.

Corruption in politics, bad policy making, deception of the electorate... there are many who would claim the research is decided in those areas, but I'm sure Emerson would try and convince you otherwise. It's gutless politics, refusing to do the right thing in favour of the popular wrong thing.


Nah, he just made the same mistake that people on both sides of the debate make with monotonous regularity: conflating helmet efficacy (which is well settled) with helmet law efficacy, which isn't.


And that he should have been more precise, but precision is dangerous to politicians.

One way of reading it could be:

Personally I’m a big believer in the benefits of helmets and I believe the evidence shows helmets reduce the risk of serious [brain] injury [resulting from a crash].

The problem he also has being a politician is that if he changes, or recommends a change in, the status quo, then in some/a lot/most people's eyes he'll take the blame for the next cyclist that dies from head injuries. Ask yourself what you would do if you were in his position (sure, you'd do the "right thing", yeah, sure you would).
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby tubby74 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:58 am

it's far easier for a politician to look at a mashed up head and say we need helmets than to look at the less obvious issues that are caused by lower participation, regardless of which way the net benefit is highest
tubby74
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:02 pm

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

Postby yugyug » Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:25 pm

what's going on in this old Gladiator poster?

Image

Cautioned for not wearing a hat? :wink:
yugyug
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am

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

Postby yugyug » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:00 pm

Helmet laws were discussed on the SBS's Cycling Central last sunday - its now up for streaming:
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/vi ... 3-February

Fairfax's Michael O'Reilly was pretty competent explaining the impact MHLs have on cycling uptake, but there was limited time and no one got into the debate on whether helmets actually work the way in which they are assumed.
yugyug
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:32 pm

What a collection of comments they sourced in that vox pop! No surprises there really I guess, but it just goes to show how these people need their helmets - their brains have been well and truly 'washed' and need to be kept clean :P

A similar interview session that has been done in Amsterdam showed a directly contradictory set of attitudes. There really is no reason why riding a bike along the street should demand that "of course you're going to wear a helmet, everyone should". Millions of people, in all sorts of cities, towns, and countryside manage to ride without a lid, enjoy it, and survive. The comparative rates of death and serious injury are actually quite damning of high helmet use.

High helmet use or compulsion = much fewer cyclists on the road = more dangerous roads as a result.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18157
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby simonn » Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:24 am

il padrone wrote:High helmet use or compulsion = much fewer cyclists on the road = more dangerous roads as a result.


You've got this equation the wrong way around. There have been plenty of surveys/studies in Australia which show that roads/infrastructure are the biggest concern for cyclists/potential cyclists.

The experience in Manly has been that the infrastructure (which is barely adequate, but you can get almost everywhere on mostly paths and lanes) went in, more people started cycling and fewer cyclists wore helmets despite MHLs and the police have pretty much stated they have more important things to worry about.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



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