Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Tamiya
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 12:15 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Tamiya » Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:55 pm

Are you meaning only 'dedicated' cycle paths?

Otherwise around where I meander most often, from Northcote & Preston through to Collingwood & Fitzroy, west towards Footscray side & south all the way to the bay... plenty of green lanes & sharrows everywhere.

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:00 pm

Scintilla wrote:The "freeway trifling add-on bits" are on various main roads for 100-200 m either side of Eastlink - basically useless paternalism. Very few council bike-lanes too; mostly they are on minor streets and go nowhere much.


And includes the underpass' at Elgar, Tram, Blackburn, Middleborough and Doncaster Rd's? The ones that ensure you don't have to cross those roads? Example: Tram Rd

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.797 ... a=!3m1!1e3

You'd know better than me, but wasn't the bike path along there connected and remade as part of the Eastern Fwy job as one continous path? And you're aware that the bridge over the Maroondah Hwy ensuring you don't have to cross on Eastlink trail was gov funded? By SEITA?

I have to admit that it's not the best out your way, but at least you have bike route signage! :lol:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.839 ... 312!8i6656

User avatar
StevOz
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:37 pm
Location: Dunsborough, WA.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby StevOz » Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:16 pm

How is this stat, there is almost zero chance of a head injury if you don't get hit by other road users, failing to give the proper right of way.

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:26 pm

Here's a classic Council vs Vic Roads.

Marine Pde, Dromana. Part of the "Beach Rd" route for weekend (and lots of weekday) cyclists. Used to be this

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.313 ... 312!8i6656

Plenty of room to ride down the road and have cars pass safely. Then Mornington Council decided to improve it. To this

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.324 ... 312!8i6656

Yep, parking that's well protected, then a sometime cycle lane advisory bs thingo.

Further down, around Blairgowrie V/R has ownership

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-38.366 ... 312!8i6656

You can't see it too clearly, but cycle lane continues through most intersections. And now, the road is kerbed on the land side, intersections have the green treatment and I suspect it may be resheeted when the kerb and footpath works are complete.

opik_bidin
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby opik_bidin » Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:09 pm

https://mobile.twitter.com/ianwalker/st ... 2432433152

In 2007 I published a study showing drivers changed their behaviour when a cyclist wore a helmet.

In 2013 some Australian researchers tried to make this finding disappear.

Today my rebuttal to their article is out, so now you can make your own judgement

https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k

wearing is associated with closer overtaking by drivers: A response to Olivier and Walter, 2013

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Scintilla » Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:56 pm

fat and old wrote:And includes the underpass' at Elgar, Tram, Blackburn, Middleborough and Doncaster Rd's? The ones that ensure you don't have to cross those roads? Example: Tram Rd

My interest is in facilities that actually facilitate meaningful transport to places that bicycle riders really want to ride (eg. retail precincts, railway stations, workplaces), on the roads, rather than frivolous and often useless (for actual transport)* freeway shared paths.


fat and old wrote:You'd know better than me, but wasn't the bike path along there connected and remade as part of the Eastern Fwy job as one continous path? And you're aware that the bridge over the Maroondah Hwy ensuring you don't have to cross on Eastlink trail was gov funded? By SEITA?

"Continuous" it certainly was not, until BN and users lobbied hard for actual workable crossings and tunnels. Bulleen Rd is still a debacle. And then there is the Chandler Bridge balls-up :roll: Been like this for well over 20 years now.

Image


There is also this delightfully useless and inherently abusive piece of Vicroads shared-path crap. Been like it for over 20 years; Vicroads knows all about it and despite many complaints from riders they cannot seem to find ANY way to remedy it, and even with the new Chandler Bridge works have determined that it is "out of the scope of the project". A direct insult to all Anniversary Trail users :x

https://goo.gl/maps/9DZx7VYQqcE2


The Eastlink Trail was also built with a whole set of crackpot intersection and crossing failures. Eventually they have been improved, but I still rate it about 6/10 for its standard of facility.


* I do not wish to follow freeways to get to most of the places I need to get to. Certainly not when riding the bike.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4374
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:08 am

opik_bidin wrote:In 2013 some Australian researchers tried to make this finding disappear.

Welcome to the politics (no, religion) of helmet law downunder. RAC 2016 findings of 34% impact quietly disappeared too.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:05 am

Scintilla wrote:
fat and old wrote:Mate, you need to do some real world research, not just look at annual reports or rely on what happened 30 or 40 years ago. If you really do believe that Vic Roads does nothing at least you’ll be surprised. :)

Well please quote for us some real data on Vicroads bicycle facilities spending (beyond those trifling freeway add-on useless bits at the main road interchanges).


That is the crux of what I/we were taking about. Vic Roads spending money on cycle infra. Both you and Human (to a lessor degree) constantly claim that V/R spends nothing or next to nothing on this.

It's interesting that Human for example will allow some leeway for Brisbane Council due to it's size; at least as an explanatory; when compared to Melbourne and it's councils

I can imagine it being a tougher fight and a tougher sell to get cycling infrastructure built in Brisbane than other major capitals due to the massive size of the council.


yet is hyper critical of Vic Roads, which is responsible for a statewide system. Certainly a system larger than Brisbane alone.

And that Scintilla, when supplied with information of V/R spending has moved the goal posts. It's no longer an issue of whether or not Vic Roads spends money on cycle infra. It's about whether or not Scintilla finds it relevant to his personal needs

I do not wish to follow freeways to get to most of the places I need to get to. Certainly not when riding the bike.


All I have done is point out what I think is unfair criticism of Vic Roads. I do not pretend that they are the cyclist's best friend, or that all V/R roads are cycling friendly, or that they are "better" than a local council. That's it. The need for people to use statistics, reports and other "irrefutable" means of supporting their positions does not always work, certainly not in this case. V/R spends a lot of money on cycle infra by default, not by design, and even more by design on projects that have little to do with on the surface with cycling which in reality is of great benefit to cyclists who use that infra. e.g. the recent reconstruction of Thompson Rd in Bulleen. Road was widened to include a dedicated bus lane. Bus lanes are used by cyclists; they provide a relatively safe lane for cycists. Cyclists now have a full lane in which to travel which connects the Nth East to the Main Yarra Trail. Hoddle St reconstruction. The bridge over the Eastern Freeway was widened to allow a much better shared path for comuting cyclists to connect to the new Bus Lanes which again, they can use. Dandenong Bypass. A cycle path was built adjacent to this from Springvale Rd to the Sth Gippsland Hwy. The new Chandler Hwy, which Scintilla is so critical of. New cycle lanes both on road and the use of the existing bridge as a dedicated shared path.

In fact every V/R new, reconstructed or duplicated arterial has cycle infra included as part of the overall project. Every. Single. One. Every V/R reconstructed intersection has cycle infra included. This may be as little as installing bike safe grates; it may go as far as grade seperated cycling lanes. It is there, in one form or another. Is it perfect? No, not by a long shot. Is it commensurate with the numbers that use it, or potential numbers? In some areas, no. In some areas, over and above what will ever be required, at least in my lifetime.

Anyway, roundabout argument that will not result in any major shift in anyone's position....and this is the helmet thread. So enough :)

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:18 am

opik_bidin wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1062670732432433152

In 2007 I published a study showing drivers changed their behaviour when a cyclist wore a helmet.

In 2013 some Australian researchers tried to make this finding disappear.

Today my rebuttal to their article is out, so now you can make your own judgement

https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k

wearing is associated with closer overtaking by drivers: A response to Olivier and Walter, 2013


In honesty, much of that was to intense for my brain :lol: ; I really only need this paragraph

To paraphrase Voeckler (2007),
suggesting that bicyclists must buy and wear protective devices to remain safe is no different from
suggesting non-smokers must buy and wear gas-masks as a solution to passive smoking. In both
cases, these are solutions that technically ‘work’, but they place all the responsibility for action –
and a financial burden – on the non-consenting injured party. In the case of bicycle helmets, it is,
moreover, a ‘solution’ that serves to maintain a status quo in which people choosing a healthy, clean
and socially responsible mode of travel are systematically marginalised (Aldred, 2014) in their
competition for limited public space with those who have chosen to use motor vehicles.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5535
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:59 pm

So for something completely different.

Lime scooters are coming to Brisbane. They are really cool and really fun.

However the scooters themselves are illegal and the state government is looking like they will exempt them so they don't stand in the way of this cool new mode of transport.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/last-minute-exemption-to-save-brisbane-scooter-riders-from-hefty-fines-20181115-p50g6u.html

Thing is - there are a whole lot of other rules for the owners of electric scooters that dictate where and how you operate them. I'm pretty sure the users of these scooters will break them all.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/wheeled-devices/skateboards

Anyway - one of those rules is that the operators of powered scooters must wear a bicycle helmet. All the scooters that I've seen so far have a matching one just hanging over the handlebars - but I can't see them lasting. How long can you keep giving away helmets? Will people even wear them anyway as we come into summer?

So clearly the minister wants to encourage these scooters. But he's also staunchly pro MHL. I can only see them struggling with the helmet law (like city cycle) so I reckon he'll have some tough choices to make. IE. let this new class of city mobility fail or give them an exemption from MHL.

How's that going to work with city cycle then? What about an exemption for them as a lime scooter goes faster than a city cycle with a tail wind. Oh the agony for him! :mrgreen:

human909
Posts: 9132
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:09 pm

Fat and old could you please stop misrepresenting me.

fat and old wrote:Both you and Human (to a lessor degree) constantly claim that V/R spends nothing or next to nothing on this.

That is not my claim. My claim has been cycling is clearly a much lower priority for them and they are frequently a barrier to pro-cycling councils trying to implement safe cycling infrastructure. VicRoads is a direct cause of many breaks in cycle routes in inner Melbourne.

fat and old wrote:It's interesting that Human for example will allow some leeway for Brisbane Council due to it's size; at least as an explanatory; when compared to Melbourne and it's councils

Huh? How so. Its got nothing to do with allowing leeway to Brisbane Council and everything to do with simply pointing out the politics at play.

fat and old wrote:yet is hyper critical of Vic Roads, which is responsible for a statewide system. Certainly a system larger than Brisbane alone.

I'm critical of missing links simply because VicRoads is unwilling to address the safety of cyclists.

fat and old wrote:In fact every V/R new, reconstructed or duplicated arterial has cycle infra included as part of the overall project. Every. Single. One. Every V/R reconstructed intersection has cycle infra included. This may be as little as installing bike safe grates;

What you are describing sounds like box ticking. Because the reality I see isn't this. I see VicRoads managed roads reconstructed all the time end up being worse for cyclists. Remember Victoria Parade?

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:27 pm

Comedian wrote:So clearly the minister wants to encourage these scooters. But he's also staunchly pro MHL. I can only see them struggling with the helmet law (like city cycle) so I reckon he'll have some tough choices to make. IE. let this new class of city mobility fail or give them an exemption from MHL.

How's that going to work with city cycle then? What about an exemption for them as a lime scooter goes faster than a city cycle with a tail wind. Oh the agony for him! :mrgreen:



You probably want to keep mum on this. Maybe they'll get an exemption! Doubtful, but not impossible.

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:41 pm

human909 wrote:What you are describing sounds like box ticking. Because the reality I see isn't this. I see VicRoads managed roads reconstructed all the time end up being worse for cyclists. Remember Victoria Parade?


Of course it's box ticking! :lol: But the boxes are there, which is good! :idea:

Vic Parade is a weird one aye? For experienced cyclists, probably a regression although

1. There was no bike infra to start with. Now we have a "protected" bus lane to use.

2. Realistically, 100m south there is Albert St, with separated lanes full length.


I'm interested in which other roads you've seen that are regressive after reconstructment (is that a word? oops, no. Reconstruction! :lol: )?

What are your views on Footscray Rd/Shepards Bridge? Not an improvement? The removal of one traffic lane to make a cycle lane through the Black Forest on the Old Calder Hwy? The inclusion of cycle lanes along Cooper St as it's been reconstructed along wth a grade separated lane on the bridge over the rail crossing in Somerton? The inclusion of cycle lanes along Frankston-Cranbourne Rd (full length) along with grade sparation at vulnerable points as it was duplicated?

And the mother of all perverseness (although it was only to V/R spec, not their money thank god)....the upgrading of drainage grates to cycle safety spec, at a cost of over $1,000,000.00!!!!! on one single project! Guess which one?

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5535
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:55 pm

fat and old wrote:
Comedian wrote:So clearly the minister wants to encourage these scooters. But he's also staunchly pro MHL. I can only see them struggling with the helmet law (like city cycle) so I reckon he'll have some tough choices to make. IE. let this new class of city mobility fail or give them an exemption from MHL.

How's that going to work with city cycle then? What about an exemption for them as a lime scooter goes faster than a city cycle with a tail wind. Oh the agony for him! :mrgreen:



You probably want to keep mum on this. Maybe they'll get an exemption! Doubtful, but not impossible.

I think they will have a choice between them failing and giving them an exemption. But how can you give it to them and not the city cycle? It's going to be **really** hard to justify that given the scooters are proving very accident prone. Especially compared to city cycle which has an excellent safety record.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12159130

human909
Posts: 9132
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:39 pm

fat and old wrote:Vic Parade is a weird one aye? For experienced cyclists, probably a regression although

Given my several run in with busses I've taken to riding the footpath. I had one driver deliberately swerve into me.

fat and old wrote:1. There was no bike infra to start with. Now we have a "protected" bus lane to use.

I believe originally it was illegal for bicycles to use the bus lane. But that law (I believe) was changed in the road rules. Either way it hasn't stopped aggressive bus drivers.

fat and old wrote:2. Realistically, 100m south there is Albert St, with separated lanes full length.

Much more preferable but teleporting across Victoria Parade is difficult and it doesn't help if you destination is on Victoria Parade. It is manageable but come on, this area has cyclists everywhere and then there is Victoria Parade a no mans land dividing what is otherwise decent infrastructure.

At least the crossings on Alexandra Parade are sensible, numerous and continuous. Victoria Parade makes at best a token effort in a couple spots.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8019
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby find_bruce » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:08 pm

I am still struggling with the surprise of the MHL thread wandering off to discuss other cycling topics :D

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:11 pm

:?:

The crossings at both Wellington and Brunswick St have cyclist priority lights. You’ve surely seen the daily merge from Brunswick into Gisborne? And the bus drivers may be ashats, but it’s not V/R’s fault really, aye? I know it doesn’t sit well with some to think that there are streets that are better left alone, but all things considered so long as there’s decent crossings at the end of the 3 major bike routes (Smith, Brunswick and Wellington) to get across and access Albert I think that’s reasonable. Happy to be disagreed with :); I use Victoria pretty often and tbh prefer it to Albert. Less chance of zombie peds and idiots accessing driveways....

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Scintilla » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:07 pm

And now.... honey-moley. Miracles do happen :shock:

https://www.facebook.com/boroondarabug/ ... 90/?type=3

Only took 39 years of VicRoads intransigence and ignorance, and several years of intense lobbying.

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:34 am

Scintilla wrote:And now.... honey-moley. Miracles do happen :shock:

https://www.facebook.com/boroondarabug/ ... 90/?type=3

Only took 39 years of VicRoads intransigence and ignorance, and several years of intense lobbying.


Not two days ago when presented with VR spending in the form of underpasses along the Eastern Fwy at all intersections which ensure that cyclists have a clear, safe and totally car free passage your responses?

IMy interest is in facilities that actually facilitate meaningful transport to places that bicycle riders really want to ride (eg. retail precincts, railway stations, workplaces), on the roads, rather than frivolous and often useless (for actual transport)* freeway shared paths.

I do not wish to follow freeways to get to most of the places I need to get to. Certainly not when riding the bike.


There are cycle lanes both sides along that bridge.

We can go tit for tat till the cows come home. I’ve had no issue with recognising VR’s shortcomings with regards to cycling, and can’t see that changing. Your continued change of priorities in order to support your hatred of VR does you a disservice.

Scintilla
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:36 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Scintilla » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:56 pm

fat and old wrote:We can go tit for tat till the cows come home. I’ve had no issue with recognising VR’s shortcomings with regards to cycling, and can’t see that changing. Your continued change of priorities in order to support your hatred of VR does you a disservice.


FFS!!

Bye now :roll:

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:47 am

Damn.....I really wanted a bite on this :lol:

And the mother of all perverseness (although it was only to V/R spec, not their money thank god)....the upgrading of drainage grates to cycle safety spec, at a cost of over $1,000,000.00!!!!! on one single project! Guess which one?

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4374
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Meanwhile, back on topic, WestCycle avoid upsetting those who fund them

Postby Thoglette » Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:00 pm

WestCycle’s position on helmets remains unchanged and we support the existing legislation.

They claim to have "read the research" yet still hide behind the "Australia's special" line.

At least they (finally) recognise that bundling cyclists into one group is a mistake. But still don't see the wood for the trees.
We appreciate and understand that there will be strong opinions on all sides of this topic, and we respect and listen to those opinions in forming a balanced view. We understand that there are a vast array of rider types, all with varying risk profiles – it’s not dissimilar to saying a Formula One driver has a different risk profile to a driver on a residential street. Yet having two set’s of rules creates too much grey area and moves the focus of the conversation from what we believe are the priorities.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4374
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

ABC report

Postby Thoglette » Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:10 pm

Nanny state debate in WA Parliament has bike helmets and vaping high on agenda

Local new MP has pushed for a "nanny state law" review.

For 'balance' the journo found
Gian De Poloni on ABC wrote:Dr Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, said while many people didn't like wearing a helmet, the laws were in place for a reason.

"I've never seen anything that suggested if we somehow took the bike helmet away that cardiovascular health would go flying down even further in a positive direction," he said.

Clearly, Dr Chapman needs to broaden his reading. (e.g. Johan de Hartog, Jeroen et al. “Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks?” Environmental health perspectives vol. 118,8 (2010): 1109-16. or Measuring the impacts of transport systems on health Dr Carlos Dora WHO )
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

fat and old
Posts: 3772
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: ABC report

Postby fat and old » Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:33 am

Thoglette wrote:
Gian De Poloni on ABC wrote:Dr Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, said while many people didn't like wearing a helmet, the laws were in place for a reason.

"I've never seen anything that suggested if we somehow took the bike helmet away that cardiovascular health would go flying down even further in a positive direction," he said.

Clearly, Dr Chapman needs to broaden his reading. (e.g. Johan de Hartog, Jeroen et al. “Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks?” Environmental health perspectives vol. 118,8 (2010): 1109-16. or Measuring the impacts of transport systems on health Dr Carlos Dora WHO )


Doesn't Johan de Hartog, Jeroen et al.'s study refer to cycling replacing car use as a short distance mode of transport? It doesn't mention "just effing around on" the bike that I saw. I can accept that using this study to support a change in modal transport has a benefit (although it was primarily carried out in The Netherlands which gave a benefit ratio of 9x to cycling over cars, when they translated it to an English situation it was reduced to a 7x benefit. I wonder what it would be in Australia?) pretty easily. It's harder to accept that every cycle ride taken is a transport situation. I know the theory of "more people safer overall" stands regardless of use, but have my doubts as far as relaxation of helmet laws being instantly translatable into the figures supplied by Jeroen et al?

human909
Posts: 9132
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: ABC report

Postby human909 » Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:45 pm

fat and old wrote:but have my doubts as far as relaxation of helmet laws being instantly translatable into the figures supplied by Jeroen et al?

Well of course it isn't instantly translatable and nobody would suggest otherwise. There is a lag in both cycling uptake and the expected health benefits.


While I'm posting...

It is interesting to look at the map in this:
https://www.domain.com.au/healthy-melbo ... ed-758227/

And this:
Image

The suburbs with the most healthy people (as per the above definition, which has some debatable aspects IMO) also coincide very closely with the rate of cycling.

Now some of this correlation could be explained by wealth disparities. But there are quite a few outliers on either side. Doncaster and Templestow, Campbellwell and quite a few other upper middle class suburbs would readily turn their noses up at surburbs like Brunswick. But Brunswick tops out on health and is bustling with cyclists.

Now correlation doesn't mean causation. It isn't just cycling at play here, it is active transport in general. (High cycling areas are also high walking areas.) Plus fit people choose to live in suburbs that appeal to their fit life outlook.

Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brokenbus