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 human909 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:43 am

simonn wrote:
il padrone wrote:Few of these doctors and engineers were actually commuting cyclists

That's good. We shouldn't want public policy based on anecdote.

No, it is fact better letting our betters make laws telling how us how we should behave. :roll: The world is full of people who want to deny the freedom of others because they think they know better. Look at how that worked out for the stolen generation.

simonn wrote:I doubt anybody expected a reduction in cycling due to an increase in safety measures.

I doubt anybody cared. Cycling was seen by policy makers as something for kids and recreation for adults.

simonn wrote:Seat belt laws had been shown as effective*. Helmets on motorcycles had been shown as effective*. Helmets had been shown as effective* in other fields etc. So why, given all this, would MHLs for bicycles be a bad thing?

Were you riding bikes in the 80s? I still remember most cyclists I knew complaining about this law.

simonn wrote:The dilemma faced by policy makers now is that on average helmets do reduce the severity of head injuries, however even if they reduced the level of cycling when first introduced, the level of cycling is increasing now.

Do I need to insult your intelligence of why this is a very poor argument? Its sort of like saying sure I've lost my leg, but my other one is getting stronger each day. The damage of MHLs remains while MHLs remain.

simonn wrote:This, along with the fact that the cycling community is small and the anti-MHL community even smaller makes removing MHLs politically risky, or even irrelevant (as in much bigger fish to fry). It is also slightly hamstrung by it being a state and slightly federal issue, while most activism and building of cycle facilities happens at the council level.

Yep it is difficult. But that doesn't mean that we should abandon the fight for freedom the rest of the world endures.
human909
 
Posts: 6016
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

by BNA » Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:46 am

BNA
 

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

Postby simonn » Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:46 am

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:
il padrone wrote:Few of these doctors and engineers were actually commuting cyclists

That's good. We shouldn't want public policy based on anecdote.

No, it is fact better letting our betters make laws telling how us how we should behave. :roll: The world is full of people who want to deny the freedom of others because they think they know better. Look at how that worked out for the stolen generation.


Do you think you can know more about everything than everyone else?

I am certainly not qualified just by being a cyclist to determine the efficacy of helmets. Some one who actually studies this, or deals with the aftermath, would certainly be "my better" in this regard.

The renaissance man stayed in the renaissance.

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:The dilemma faced by policy makers now is that on average helmets do reduce the severity of head injuries, however even if they reduced the level of cycling when first introduced, the level of cycling is increasing now.

Do I need to insult your intelligence of why this is a very poor argument? Its sort of like saying sure I've lost my leg, but my other one is getting stronger each day. The damage of MHLs remains while MHLs remain.


I clearly do not need to insult your intelligence to point out that I was making what I believe to be a statement of historical fact, not making a value judgement.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Xplora » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:25 am

Didn't feel the attack was called for, 909. I agree with simon's point. There are advocacy challenges and I'll throw the biggest one out there - the most successful advocate for cycling, SCA, and to a lesser extent AGF, are completely onboard with MHL, and SCA doesn't want to touch it with a 10 foot ugly stick.

I will put it out there - the current wave of cyclists are simply people who are choking from urban sprawl and the physical and financial reliance on cars. There is nothing egalitarian or noble about it. It's just necessity. If you don't need a car for kids, and you could commute without issues like presentability then it becomes nonsensical to invest in a car. I know plenty of one car families who thrive without the second car. I grew up in a 4 car house. I won't get that second car. :idea: These people aren't interested in MHL; they are interested in saving money and time!
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7421
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:39 am

simonn wrote:however even if they reduced the level of cycling when first introduced, the level of cycling is increasing now.

This keeps getting trotted out as a reason not to worry about the impacts of the MHL on cycling uptake. I very much doubt the accuracy of this statement. Currently cycling for commuting is still sitting at ~2% of journeys in Melbourne, less in other state capitals. The figures were not much different 10 years ago. There has been a bit of an increase in city commuting by adults, and a fair boom in roadie bunch riding. But this is not all that we should consider. The killer decline from the 80s has been the kids and teens, riding to school, and even other, non-CBD conmuters riding to workplaces in manufacturing and service industries - this was a fair number previously.

Increase in one sector does not make an increase in bicycle use overall. Without the MHLs we do not know what would have happened, but it's not unreasonable to presume that there would have been many more cyclists, especially amongst the young, the lower income, and the occcasional/non-enthusiast rider.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20359
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:18 pm

simonn wrote:Do you think you can know more about everything than everyone else?

I think I am in a better position to judge what is best for me than somebody who has never met me.

simonn wrote:I am certainly not qualified just by being a cyclist to determine the efficacy of helmets. Some one who actually studies this, or deals with the aftermath, would certainly be "my better" in this regard.

I hope you are being disengenuous rather than ignorant. Do I need to remind you that this isn't a discussion about the efficacy of helmets in an impact?

simonn wrote:The renaissance man stayed in the renaissance.

Which is where Australia currently is regarding cyclist safety.

simonn wrote:clearly do not need to insult your intelligence to point out that I was making what I believe to be a statement of historical fact, not making a value judgement.

Nobody said you were making a value judgment simon. But you were using it as an argument, which as I pointed out was an exceedingly poor one.
human909
 
Posts: 6016
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:28 pm

Xplora wrote:Didn't feel the attack was called for, 909. I agree with simon's point. There are advocacy challenges and I'll throw the biggest one out there - the most successful advocate for cycling, SCA, and to a lesser extent AGF, are completely onboard with MHL, and SCA doesn't want to touch it with a 10 foot ugly stick.

Which is exactly the problem. But as I have already said that is no reason to give up or be silent.

Xplora wrote:I will put it out there - the current wave of cyclists are simply people who are choking from urban sprawl and the physical and financial reliance on cars. There is nothing egalitarian or noble about it. It's just necessity. If you don't need a car for kids, and you could commute without issues like presentability then it becomes nonsensical to invest in a car. I know plenty of one car families who thrive without the second car. I grew up in a 4 car house. I won't get that second car. :idea: These people aren't interested in MHL; they are interested in saving money and time!

Who says that these people are not interested in MHLs? Who said anything about nobility?

How do any of these things mean that they are not interested in MHLs!? Two decades has not change the fact that helmets add another barrier to cycling. Two decades has not change the fact that people dislike having a helmet on their head. You know what? I am part of the current wave of cyclists you describe, so are most of my friends. You know what, I care about MHLs. And so do many of my friends.
human909
 
Posts: 6016
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:55 pm

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:Do you think you can know more about everything than everyone else?

I think I am in a better position to judge what is best for me than somebody who has never met me.


So, if you got cancer you would devise and prescribe your own treatments...?

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:I am certainly not qualified just by being a cyclist to determine the efficacy of helmets. Some one who actually studies this, or deals with the aftermath, would certainly be "my better" in this regard.

I hope you are being disengenuous rather than ignorant. Do I need to remind you that this isn't a discussion about the efficacy of helmets in an impact?


You really do need things spoon fed to you....

I was using this as an example of why cyclists are not necessarily the best judge of what is best for them. Just like the initial objections to seat belt and helmet laws by motorists and motorcyclists.


human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:clearly do not need to insult your intelligence to point out that I was making what I believe to be a statement of historical fact, not making a value judgement.

Nobody said you were making a value judgment simon. But you were using it as an argument, which as I pointed out was an exceedingly poor one.


Correct, I was using it as an argument, but not an argument for MHLs like you are implying. AS you are clearly the smartest guy in the room, I'll leave you to figure out what the argument it was.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:16 pm

simonn wrote:So, if you got cancer you would devise and prescribe your own treatments...?

No. But I do have the freedom to choose. The doctor can't force me into treatment. That choice is important. I've gone against doctor recommendations many times. Doctors do not always know what is best for me, how could they?

simonn wrote:You really do need things spoon fed to you....

I was using this as an example of why cyclists are not necessarily the best judge of what is best for them. Just like the initial objections to seat belt and helmet laws by motorists and motorcyclists.

And none of that is an example showing that cyclists (motorists/motorcyclists) are not necessary the best judge of what is best for them.

Simon you are continuing to ignore that an individual freedom of choice matters. You continue to ignore that a rule for all fails to address the needs of all.
human909
 
Posts: 6016
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby London Boy » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:28 pm

simonn wrote:
human909 wrote:No, it is fact better letting our betters make laws telling how us how we should behave. :roll: The world is full of people who want to deny the freedom of others because they think they know better. Look at how that worked out for the stolen generation.


Do you think you can know more about everything than everyone else?

I am certainly not qualified just by being a cyclist to determine the efficacy of helmets. Some one who actually studies this, or deals with the aftermath, would certainly be "my better" in this regard.

For research into the effectiveness of cycle helmet laws, you probably are every bit as qualified as a trauma surgeon.

A trauma surgeon is qualified to say that helmets reduce particular types of head injuries sustained by people who present at A&E.

But you'd need a social scientist of some kind to assess the impact of helmet laws on cycling participation. You'd need a someone else to assess the relationship between participation rates and accident rates. You would need a psychologist to assess the impact of risk acceptance on cyclist behaviours. I'm not sure who you would need to examine the relationship between those behaviours and the number and type of accidents that occur as a result, and the incidence of injuries other than head injuries. I don't know who you would need to compare the relative social and personal impacts of chronic disease, resulting from lack of exercise, and trauma, resulting from collisions. Or the relationship between cycling participation rates and fitness levels through society.

And so on. A lot of words to say that if you have the basic smarts (I assume you do) you can read, interpret and critically evaluate research papers. Most importantly, you can work out what the question is. And it isn't so narrow as whether helmets reduce the damage done if you hit your head on something.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

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

Postby mick243 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:34 pm

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:
il padrone wrote:Few of these doctors and engineers were actually commuting cyclists

That's good. We shouldn't want public policy based on anecdote.

No, it is fact better letting our betters make laws telling how us how we should behave. :roll: The world is full of people who want to deny the freedom of others because they think they know better. Look at how that worked out for the stolen generation.


Were you riding bikes in the 80s? I still remember most cyclists I knew complaining about this law.


Freedom huh. So everyone should be allowed to own machine guns, car drivers shouldn't need licenses or rego, untrained people should be able to do all the electrical work they like.... Sometimes freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good. Maybe, just maybe the person saying you should wear a helmet does know better than you.


Was I riding bikes in the 80's? Yes I was. I was also wearing a helmet - I didn't need someone to tell me to, just like I always wore a seatbelt without being told to. Just like I don't jump off cliffs without being told not to.


Wearing a helmet really isn't that bad, especially compared to being a vegetable.
mick243
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

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

Postby mick243 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:43 pm

myforwik wrote:I am against helmets for the simple reason that there is known heirarchy of risk control:
-Eliminate or engineering it so it can't happen.
-Administrative rules to stop it happening.
-Lastly: PPE to protect when it does happen.

Obviously we want to eliminate it by not having cyclists and road users interact by having better infrastructure, but this isn't always practical.

By requiring PPE, this is an open admission that the administrative rules of the road use regulations fail to provide safety to cyclists. These administrative rules are easy to change, but things like helmets, are used as reasons not to change them.


Where you have failed in your appreciation of the WHS control hierarchy, is that just because you have used higher level controls does not mean that you don't also use lower level ones... The only control that prevents the need for all lower level controls is elimination - if you eliminate the possibility of falling from your bike then you can eliminate the need for ppe (in this case, helmet)

We cannot eliminate the possibility of a fall.
We can reduce its likelihood, by segregating from cars and building better infrastructure.
We can reduce likelihood by administrative controls (like safe passing laws, no go zones etc)
Yet we are still left with a small possibility that you may fall from your bike and hit your head, so wear the PPE
mick243
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:45 pm

mick243 wrote:Freedom huh. So everyone should be allowed to own machine guns, car drivers shouldn't need licenses or rego, untrained people should be able to do all the electrical work they like.... Sometimes freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good.

Personal freedoms, the sort that do not infringe those of others, nor risk any harm to other citizens. The 'freedoms' you list all fail on these counts. Riding a bike without a helmet does not.

You seem to be misunderstanding freedom here


mick243 wrote:Was I riding bikes in the 80's? Yes I was. I was also weariing a helmet

So was I, but I chose to wear a helmet, and wore it most of the time..... choice again :idea:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20359
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby mick243 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:09 pm

il padrone wrote:
mick243 wrote:Freedom huh. So everyone should be allowed to own machine guns, car drivers shouldn't need licenses or rego, untrained people should be able to do all the electrical work they like.... Sometimes freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good.

Personal freedoms, the sort that do not infringe those of others, nor risk any harm to other citizens. The 'freedoms' you list all fail on these counts. Riding a bike without a helmet does not.

You seem to be misunderstanding freedom here


mick243 wrote:Was I riding bikes in the 80's? Yes I was. I was also weariing a helmet

So was I, but I chose to wear a helmet, and wore it most of the time..... choice again :idea:


How does owning an inanimate object infringe on the freedoms of others?

So, you're against mandatory seatbelt laws?

You don't like the law that says you can't leave an unattended vehicle unlocked?
mick243
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

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

Postby human909 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:23 pm

mick243 wrote:Freedom huh. So everyone should be allowed to own machine guns, car drivers shouldn't need licenses or rego, untrained people should be able to do all the electrical work they like.... Sometimes freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good. Maybe, just maybe the person saying you should wear a helmet does know better than you.

Please explain how MHLs have achieved a greater good in Australia. If this good is so great why are the rest of the world not following our lead?

mick243 wrote:Yet we are still left with a small possibility that you may fall from your bike and hit your head, so wear the PPE

I could apply the same logical process to pedestrians.

You have completely ignored the other side of the analysis that of the costs of mandating helmets.

mick243 wrote:How does owning an inanimate object infringe on the freedoms of others?

Don't play dumb. Public gun ownership clearly has issues and problems around it relating harm to others. It is all a trade off of allowing freedoms vs the public good. You've already said that yourself. Except the public good from MHLs is not really clear. :wink:

mick243 wrote:You don't like the law that says you can't leave an unattended vehicle unlocked?

Well now that you mention it, yes.
Last edited by human909 on Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 6016
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:27 pm

Drag up all the obscure regs you like, the fact remains that my wearing or not wearing of a helmet has no impacts upon anybody else. It is a personal choice. I may chose to ride wthout wearing one, based on an entirely reasonable assessment of my situation and riding scenario. Nobody elde should play a part in determining this.

What happens for people riding bikes in almost every other country around the world.
Last edited by il padrone on Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20359
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby mick243 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:43 pm

human909 wrote:
mick243 wrote:Freedom huh. So everyone should be allowed to own machine guns, car drivers shouldn't need licenses or rego, untrained people should be able to do all the electrical work they like.... Sometimes freedoms need to be curtailed for the greater good. Maybe, just maybe the person saying you should wear a helmet does know better than you.

Please explain how MHLs have achieved a greater good in Australia. If this good is so great why are the rest of the world not following our lead?

mick243 wrote:Yet we are still left with a small possibility that you may fall from your bike and hit your head, so wear the PPE

I could apply the same logical process to pedestrians.

You have completely ignored the other side of the analysis that of the costs of mandating helmets.

mick243 wrote:How does owning an inanimate object infringe on the freedoms of others?

Don't play dumb. Public gun ownership clearly has issues and problems around it relating harm to others. It is all a trade off of allowing freedoms vs the public good. You've already said that yourself. Except the public good from MHLs is not really clear. :wink:

mick243 wrote:You don't like the law that says you can't leave an unattended vehicle unlocked?

Well now that you mention it, yes.


Cost of mandating helmets.... Hmm basic compliant helmet about ten bucks? How much did your bike cost, and what % of ownership cost does that add?
How much does every preventable (ack, they're not all preventable by helmets) cost? Helmet is a cheap mitigation measure (again, they're not a 100% solution! but banning bikes is! what would you prefer)

MHL greater good would be the lessened likelihood of traumatic head injuries. Just like mandatory seatbelt laws lessen the likelihood of traumatic injuries in car crashes. We all pay for a public health system, anything we can do to lessen the load on it by reducing the need for it in the first place can only be a good thing.

Owning an inanimate object does no harm at all to anyone.... On the other hand how you use it does - whole other set of laws for that.

Yes, some jurisdictions have outlawed leaving an unattended vehicle unlocked, in an effort to reduce theft, why would you want to make it easier for a thief to take your stuff?
mick243
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

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

Postby mick243 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:46 pm

il padrone wrote:Drag up all the obscure regs you like, the fact remains that my wearing or not wearing of a helmet has no impacts upon anybody else. It is a personal choice. I may chose to ride wthout wearing one, based on an entirely reasonable assessment of my situation and riding scenario. Nobody elde should play a part in determining this.

What happens for peole riding bikes in almost every other country around the world.


There are bucket loads of seemingly odd "freedom reducing" regs all over the world...here you must wear an approved helmet on a bike, and you cannot own a machine gun....

Don't want to wear a helmet? Want a machine gun? Go somewhere else, or get into politics and get the laws changed.



Or, convert to Seik, apparently they are exempt from MHL......
mick243
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:00 pm

mick243 wrote:MHL greater good would be the lessened likelihood of traumatic head injuries. Just like mandatory seatbelt laws lessen the likelihood of traumatic injuries in car crashes. We all pay for a public health system, anything we can do to lessen the load on it by reducing the need for it in the first place can only be a good thing.

Be careful trying to measure against some greater good. Most of the bogans and the crazy safety lobby would argue that just banning bikes on roads would be for the "greater good" :roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20359
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby bychosis » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:36 pm

il padrone wrote:Drag up all the obscure regs you like, the fact remains that my wearing or not wearing of a helmet has no impacts upon anybody else. It is a personal choice. I may chose to ride wthout wearing one, based on an entirely reasonable assessment of my situation and riding scenario. Nobody elde should play a part in determining this.

What happens for people riding bikes in almost every other country around the world.


Not wearing a helmet in a crash does have impacts on others. Notably surgeon, nurses and the health care system and associated long term costs of head injuries. Seatbelts are similar, as a driver (passengers are a bit different) not wearing a seatbelt in a crash will impact others, again the health professionals that ty to patch you back up. I have driven thousands of km and not had an incident resulting in injury used what my seatbelt was designed for a few times, similarly I've ridden lots and used my helmet as it was intended a few times (off road, trail inflicted). Both of those devices are intended to prevent injury in the event of an incident. More vehicles/bikes around equals more chance of needing either of them.

MHL's and M-Seatbelt-L's are designed to reduce the burden on the health care system in the event of incidents, sure the impinge on soe of our freedoms (laying across the back seat to sleep, wind in the hair etc) but overall I think that road situations warrant the MHL, paths not so much but it's easier to blanket the rule.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.
User avatar
bychosis
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:45 pm

bychosis wrote:Not wearing a helmet in a crash does have impacts on others. Notably surgeon, nurses and the health care system and associated long term costs of head injuries.....

Oh, for the love of mike, please cut with the twaddle. On this sort of principle eating a Big Mac is an infringement on my rights as a tax-payer and should be outlawed right now

:roll: :roll: :evil: :P

How on earth do they cope in Europe I wonder ???


But you know only too well what I was talking about, the direct rights of other citizens as they go about their normal day. Driving a car in excess of the speed limit or ignoring other road rules generally has great risk of directly causing harm to others or significantly increasing the risk of causing harm to others. Same for allowing people to own, possess, and use machine-guns. Riding a bike without a helmet does not cause nor risk any such harm. Direct harrm.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20359
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 4:54 pm

mick243 wrote:Cost of mandating helmets.... Hmm basic compliant helmet about ten bucks? How much did your bike cost, and what % of ownership cost does that add?
How much does every preventable (ack, they're not all preventable by helmets) cost? Helmet is a cheap mitigation measure (again, they're not a 100% solution! but banning bikes is! what would you prefer)

The cost is much more than that as already discussed.

mick243 wrote:MHL greater good would be the lessened likelihood of traumatic head injuries. Just like mandatory seatbelt laws lessen the likelihood of traumatic injuries in car crashes. We all pay for a public health system, anything we can do to lessen the load on it by reducing the need for it in the first place can only be a good thing.

There is no evidence that discouraging cycling and mandating helmets results in better health outcomes. In fact most of the evidence is the opposite. If helmets lead to greater good for cyclist The Netherlands must be a horrible place for cyclists with <1% of cyclists wearing helmets. :roll:

mick243 wrote:...get the laws changed.


Well that is exactly what I would like to do. But meanwhile, why are you so opposed to me having the same freedom as the rest of the world's cyclists?
human909
 
Posts: 6016
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby mick243 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:35 pm

human909 wrote:
mick243 wrote:Cost of mandating helmets.... Hmm basic compliant helmet about ten bucks? How much did your bike cost, and what % of ownership cost does that add?
How much does every preventable (ack, they're not all preventable by helmets) cost? Helmet is a cheap mitigation measure (again, they're not a 100% solution! but banning bikes is! what would you prefer)

The cost is much more than that as already discussed.

mick243 wrote:MHL greater good would be the lessened likelihood of traumatic head injuries. Just like mandatory seatbelt laws lessen the likelihood of traumatic injuries in car crashes. We all pay for a public health system, anything we can do to lessen the load on it by reducing the need for it in the first place can only be a good thing.

There is no evidence that discouraging cycling and mandating helmets results in better health outcomes. In fact most of the evidence is the opposite. If helmets lead to greater good for cyclist The Netherlands must be a horrible place for cyclists with <1% of cyclists wearing helmets. :roll:

mick243 wrote:...get the laws changed.


Well that is exactly what I would like to do. But meanwhile, why are you so opposed to me having the same freedom as the rest of the world's cyclists?


So, explain to me how the cost of a mandatory helmet is more than the cost of a helmet.

I'm not trying to curtail your cycling freedom at all, in fact I wholeheartedly encourage you to get out and go for a ride wherever and whenever the mood takes you, at the same time I encourage you to follow all applicable laws like stopping for red lights and wearing a helmet.

Telling you to protect your head is not an attempt at removing your freedom. Yes it's a nanny state thing to do, but many morons prove time and time again that common sense isn't all that common, and need spoon feeding to save themselves from themselves. If we were all as clever as some seem to think, we wouldn't need any laws or law enforcement because we would all get along without harming ourselves/others
mick243
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

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

Postby mick243 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:37 pm

As for MHL reducing cycling numbers, the people who "refuse to ride because of MHL" are the ones looking for an excuse not to... Probably about as any who refuse to drive because of mandatory seatbelt laws.
mick243
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:48 pm

mick243 wrote:As for MHL reducing cycling numbers, the people who "refuse to ride because of MHL" are the ones looking for an excuse not to... Probably about as any who refuse to drive because of mandatory seatbelt laws.

Hmm...

Few of these people would be willling to ride wearing a helmet



Meantime, the dangers of observational studies. Context is everything. Can we change our context on Australian roads, rather than just mandating helmets ??
Last edited by il padrone on Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20359
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Mulger bill » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:07 pm

AU is one of the fattest nations in the world, from what I've read most likely due to the curtailment of incidental exercise.
Wonder how much that has cost the health budget over the years?
...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: 26974
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Torpedo 7 Cycling Express
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