Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

[simonn]

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. 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.

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.

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.

[Xplora]

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.

[human909]

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.

[high_tea]

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.

[simonn]

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

Clearly.

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.

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."

[human909]

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.

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.

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.



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

[simonn]

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.

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.

[human909]

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.

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?

[high_tea]

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

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.

[human909]

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

[high_tea]

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.

[il padrone]

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

[lturner]

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.

[human909]

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.

[ldrcycles]

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.

[simonn]

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.

[Xplora]

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.

[Ross]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/na ... public_rss

Lifesavers to wear helmets

[simonn]

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.

[human909]

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.

[il padrone]

[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.







And they do have a working bikeshare scheme.

[Xplora]

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.

[human909]

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

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

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."

[DavidS]

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

[VRE]

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).