Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[KenGS]

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).

You mean their design has been hijacked for the exclusive use of motor vehicles

[richbee]

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).

Only motorways and major arterials are designed for motor vehicles. Residential streets in older suburbs and city centres are not designed so much as just happened to be a formalisation of access ways which have been paved. Most rural roads are old wagon/cart tracks that still follow the same route, and indeed were probably used more frequently by cyclists and horses before they were as KenGS so aptly put it 'hijacked for motor vehicles' sometime in the fifties when cars became affordable for all.

[human909]

Despite all the thousands of photos and video of Dutch cycle paths, a significant proportion of the cycling time in holland is still spent on general roads.

But really bringing infrastructure into this topic is a spurious argument. We all know improvements to our cycling can come from a myriad of ways the fact that other improvements exist isn't an argument against repealing MHLs.

[VRE]

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).

Only motorways and major arterials are designed for motor vehicles. Residential streets in older suburbs and city centres are not designed so much as just happened to be a formalisation of access ways which have been paved. Most rural roads are old wagon/cart tracks that still follow the same route, and indeed were probably used more frequently by cyclists and horses before they were as KenGS so aptly put it 'hijacked for motor vehicles' sometime in the fifties when cars became affordable for all.

I'm well aware that bicycles preceded motor vehicles, but that doesn't help us in the present. It doesn't change the fact that roads have been built specifically with motor vehicles in mind for many decades now, and any bicycle-specific infrastructure is generally just "patched" onto motor vehicle infrastructure, so that politicians can claim the Green vote, because they're seen to be "doing something" . If bicycle infrastructure was better planned and executed, then another reason for MHLs would vanish (so yes, I'm keeping my post on-topic ).

I'm also well aware that there are other arguments against MHLs, so I only pointed out the infrastructure issue to indicate that this is one of the reasons our government seems to continue supporting MHLs - they feel that our roads are somehow too dangerous for cyclists.

[Xplora]

VRE - Try to not get caught up in the idea that the government is a nebulous groupthink that has opinions. The Government is made up of at least a quarter the Parliament (except QLD) in Australia. They form under similar policy intentions. That's about it. The Government doesn't think anything. The politicians that make up the Government have not had substantial reason to change their view of indifference. Once the issue is highlighted, it can be changed very quickly. Pressure was put to bear on a great range of safety issues in the early 90s; MHL is just one of them as political correctness really took over in a big way in a rejection of the excess of the 80s. I can understand that it was put in place - lobbying groups, with very little real ability to improve the situation for cyclists, pushed it through and it came through.

The problem is that change is hard, and the obvious solution - dramatically toughening laws regulating cars and trucks and making contact with pedestrians and cyclists an inexcusable criminal offence - is politically difficult. Somehow it's OK to fundamentally change the entire welfare and taxation system to attempt a reduction in greenhouse gas, despite it making no significant impact to the air (considering the actions of other nations) but it's not OK to say that hurting and killing because you are behind a steering wheel, just doesn't make sense. I am 100% behind the freedom that a car gives you, but our society has to move past the idea that a car is anything less than a brutal killing machine when handled without wisdom. I am guilty of this in a big way, because I'm as impatient as a hungry toddler, but my feelings are irrelevant to the basic state of play - a bike is a more society friendly way of getting around from every aspect. We CANNOT negotiate the value of human life. If you can't get there fast enough in a car, you need to look at the rest of your life to work out why you can't there in time.

[human909]

From the bike NSW website:

Bicycle NSW recommends that a review is held to determine the net benefit of the mandatory helmet laws in Part 15 (Additional rules for bicycle riders) of the Australian Road Rules. If no significant benefit is found, Bicycle NSW recommends that the law is revoked if not entirely, then at least for adult bicycle users.

Fantastic!

http://bicyclensw.org.au/advocacy/posit ... l/helmets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HELMET USAGE

Bicycle NSW recommends the wearing of helmets by bicycle users due to the likelihood that, in the event of an accident, a person wearing a helmet will benefit from a greater level of head protection than those not wearing a helmet. At face value, this seems to be an elementary conclusion, however it should also be noted that some studies indicate that the wearer of a bicycle helmet may suffer greater brain injuries due to the rotation (angular acceleration) induced by the increased diameter and higher frictional coefficient of a helmet [1].
Helmets are designed to withstand the type of modest impact that would be sustained by the head of a bicycle user who falls to the ground from a standing position. Helmets are not tested for, or designed for, the type of impact that would be sustained during a high-speed collision with a motor vehicle.
Bicycle NSW recognises that bicycle users are required by law to wear a properly fitted helmet and therefore recommends that bicycle users comply with the law.
[1] Curnow WJ: Bicycle helmets and brain injury Accid Anal Prev 2007, 39(3):433–436.

HELMET PROMOTION
icycle safety programs that focus on the vulnerability of bicycle users and the need to wear a helmet send an unmistakable message that riding a bicycle is dangerous and is not an activity that should be engaged-in by children or anyone who values their life [1]. The unfortunate net result of helmet promotion campaigns is a reduction in the number of people riding bicycles. A reduction in the number of people riding bicycles not only reduces the Benefits of Cycling Experienced by Society, but it has a detrimental effect on bicycle safety.
The relationship between bicycle numbers and safety is known as the “safety in numbers” effect and is widely accepted by experienced bicycle planners and advocates. As bicycle numbers increase, the environment becomes safer for bicycle users. This is achieved through a combination of improved driver awareness and acceptance, reductions in traffic speeds and the ability to justify the improvement of bicycle infrastructure.
While it is easy to see how an increase in bicycle usage improves the safety of bicycle riders, there are also a number of less-obvious effects. The increased driver awareness and decrease in traffic speeds also benefits pedestrians who are equally vulnerable to the damage inflicted by motor vehicles. The safety effects of an increase in the number of bicycle users even extends to improved safety for motorists.
While the purpose of helmet promotion is to improve safety, the actual result is that potential bicycle users are scared away, thus reducing the number of people riding bicycles. This results in a more dangerous environment for all riders.
Bicycle NSW recommends that Governments seeking to improve the safety of bicycle users do so by investing in high-quality bicycle infrastructure that is separated from motorised traffic. Bicycle NSW recommends that Government promotion campaigns aimed at improving road safety should focus on driver education.
[1] Horton D: Fear of Cycling. In Cycling and Society Edited by Horton D, Rosen P, Cox P. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2007:pp133-152.

HELMET CHOICE
There is significant evidence to show that the introduction of New South Wales mandatory helmet laws in 1991 produced a 30% decrease in cycling numbers [1]. This decrease in cycling numbers not only decreases the Benefits of Bicycling experienced by individuals, business and society, but results in an environment that is inherently less-safe for bicycle users [2].
As Peter Jacobson notes, “policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling” [3]. Thus, policies that decrease the number of people bicycling reduces the safety of the environment for bicycle users.
While head injury rates did decrease after the laws were introduced, this was part of a continued decline in cycling injuries since the 1970s [4]. The evidence suggests that there were other factors besides mandatory helmet laws such as general road safety media campaigns and the introduction of random breath testing in 1982 that contributed to an overall improvement in road safety. The steady decline in Australian cyclist deaths from 1950 to 2000 mirrors that of The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom and the USA, none of which introduced mandatory helmet legislation [5].
What is hard to quantify is the damage that has been done to cycling culture by mandatory helmet laws. While the medical fraternity and motorist organisations are keen to encourage the wearing of helmets, little weight has been given to the fact that every country that benefits from a high cycling mode-share allows adults to ride a bicycle without a helmet. If we are to learn from world’s best practice, then bicycle users should be free to choose to ride without a helmet.
Bicycle NSW recommends that a review is held to determine the net benefit of the mandatory helmet laws in Part 15 (Additional rules for bicycle riders) of the Australian Road Rules. If no significant benefit is found, Bicycle NSW recommends that the law is revoked if not entirely, then at least for adult bicycle users.
[1] Smith N, Milthorpe F: An observational survey of law compliance and helmet wearing by bicyclists in New South Wales – 1993. . Roseberry: Roads and Traffic Authority; 1993.
[2] Robinson DL: No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets BMJ 2006, 332:722e725
[3] Jacobsen PL: Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention 2003, 9:205-209.
[4] Rissel C: The impact of compulsory cycle helmet legislation on cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia: A rejoinder. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2012, 45.
[5] Pucher J, Dijkstra L: Making walking and cycling safer: lessons from Europe Transportation Quarterly 2000, 54:25-50.


BICYCLE SHARE PROGRAMS
Bike share schemes are currently thriving in many European cities. The success of such programs can easily be explained in countries such as Holland and Denmark where there is already an established bicycle culture. But the success of bike share in places such as Dublin provides a clear example of what can be achieved in a city which has never been seen as a cycling capital.
In order to explain the success of bike share in Dublin, it is worthwhile to compare it to the bike share program in Melbourne which has similar characteristics. Both cities have a cool, wet climate and both cities have a relatively low bicycle mode share. Even the density and reach of the bicycle share programs are very similar. However, while Dublin’s bike share program is being expanded due to its success, Melbourne’s program is floundering.
The failure of bike share programs in Melbourne and Brisbane may be the result of a very simple but very powerful deterrent. While most cities around the world allow adults to choose whether to wear a helmet, these particular cities require the use of a helmet. This makes it difficult to just grab a bike for an impromptu trip [1].
Bicycle users who perform predictable journeys from home or work such as commuting or recreational riding usually have easy access to a helmet just as they have access to a bicycle. However, bicycle users who have impromptu and unpredictable transport needs require an impromptu solution. While bike share schemes in Australia are able to supply the bicycle in a convenient and cost-effective manner, supplying helmets doubles the complexity and cost of the transaction [2].
Bicycle NSW recommends that riders using bike share bicycles be exempt from the mandatory helmet laws in Part 15 (Additional rules for bicycle riders) of the Australian Road Rules.
[1] Fishman E, Washington S, Haworth N: Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F 2012, 15:686–698.
[2] Fishman E, Washington S, Haworth N: Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Transport Reviews 2013, DOI:10.1080/01441647.2013.775612.

[Percrime]

THat is fantastic.

[KenGS]

It seems that in direct contrast to the world at large, the temperature down in Hades is staring to fall

[Ken Ho]

Yay !!
That looks encouraging.
Meanwhile, here in Qld, where the law has been modified to allow an exemption on religious grounds, I'm going to try this.

officer - why aren't you wearing a helmet, sonny ?
Me - it's against my religion, sir
Officer -what religion would that be now ?
Me - why would that matter officer, are you planning on discriminating between religions ?

Of course, I have a medical exemption to fall back on, but I'm seeing a pissy, but thwarted copper. Bells and reflectors will be fitted, so the fallbacks of fining me for whatever other crap they can come up with are not available either.

[VRE]

Yes, being deliberately rude to a police officer will definitely ensure a good outcome.

[Ken Ho]

Yes, being deliberately rude to a police officer will definitely ensure a good outcome.

I'm not sure where you get rudeness from. I'm merely pointing out that it's not just popular or well known religions that ight have the right to pursue their beliefs, and that discriminating on that grounds would be actually a breach of our constitution. Last time I got pulled over by a copper for not having a helmet on, he actually called me a "stupid prick".

[VRE]

Yes, being deliberately rude to a police officer will definitely ensure a good outcome.

I'm not sure where you get rudeness from. I'm merely pointing out that it's not just popular or well known religions that ight have the right to pursue their beliefs, and that discriminating on that grounds would be actually a breach of our constitution. Last time I got pulled over by a copper for not having a helmet on, he actually called me a "stupid prick".

In your above hypothetical scenario, you respond to a police officer's question with another question that implies that the officer is planning on discriminating against you. You can't see the rudeness in that? If someone shows discriminatory behaviour towards you, then you defend yourself, but to accuse someone of discrimination before they even do or say anything is just rude.

[Xplora]

The joys of inflammatory behaviour and remarks Yep the religious exemption is just gold. I reckon you might get something up in the High Court if you hired an expensive enough barrister. There is clear discrimination where a Sikh's head does not need to be protected and an Anglican's head does.

[high_tea]

Yay !!
That looks encouraging.
Meanwhile, here in Qld, where the law has been modified to allow an exemption on religious grounds, I'm going to try this.

officer - why aren't you wearing a helmet, sonny ?
Me - it's against my religion, sir
Officer -what religion would that be now ?
Me - why would that matter officer, are you planning on discriminating between religions ?

Of course, I have a medical exemption to fall back on, but I'm seeing a pissy, but thwarted copper. Bells and reflectors will be fitted, so the fallbacks of fining me for whatever other crap they can come up with are not available either.

FYI you have to have some kind of headwear on for the religious exemption to apply, and it has to make wearing a helmet impractical....

[simonn]

Pastafarians from the Colandarial denomination should be ok then. May you be touched by his noodley appendage. rAmen.

[Ken Ho]

Yay !!
That looks encouraging.
Meanwhile, here in Qld, where the law has been modified to allow an exemption on religious grounds, I'm going to try this.

officer - why aren't you wearing a helmet, sonny ?
Me - it's against my religion, sir
Officer -what religion would that be now ?
Me - why would that matter officer, are you planning on discriminating between religions ?

Of course, I have a medical exemption to fall back on, but I'm seeing a pissy, but thwarted copper. Bells and reflectors will be fitted, so the fallbacks of fining me for whatever other crap they can come up with are not available either.

FYI you have to have some kind of headwear on for the religious exemption to apply, and it has to make wearing a helmet impractical....

[Ken Ho]

Yay !!
That looks encouraging.
Meanwhile, here in Qld, where the law has been modified to allow an exemption on religious grounds, I'm going to try this.

officer - why aren't you wearing a helmet, sonny ?
Me - it's against my religion, sir
Officer -what religion would that be now ?
Me - why would that matter officer, are you planning on discriminating between religions ?

Of course, I have a medical exemption to fall back on, but I'm seeing a pissy, but thwarted copper. Bells and reflectors will be fitted, so the fallbacks of fining me for whatever other crap they can come up with are not available either.

FYI you have to have some kind of headwear on for the religious exemption to apply, and it has

Yay !!
That looks encouraging.
Meanwhile, here in Qld, where the law has been modified to allow an exemption on religious grounds, I'm going to try this.

officer - why aren't you wearing a helmet, sonny ?
Me - it's against my religion, sir
Officer -what religion would that be now ?
Me - why would that matter officer, are you planning on discriminating between religions ?

Of course, I have a medical exemption to fall back on, but I'm seeing a pissy, but thwarted copper. Bells and reflectors will be fitted, so the fallbacks of fining me for whatever other crap they can come up with are not available either.

FYI you have to have some kind of headwear on for the religious exemption to apply, and it has to make wearing a helmet impractical....

And if my religion requires my head to be bare at all times ? Where does that leave me ? Very impractical to wear a helmet then. As it is, my religion prefers me to wear a pork-pIe hat, which makes a helmet at least as impractical to wear as a Sikh turban does.

to make wearing a helmet impractical....

[Ken Ho]

Sorry for that rubbish post above, I can't seem to fix it. My point being, that it should not matter what my religion is, and as such the copper has no right to inquire. Mere inquiry implies potential discrimination.
The Pastafarians proved this quite nicely in their campaign. All religions have arbitrary rules, and my personal one should not be treated with less respect as a result. Th Jedi Knights also received official recognition after the last census.

[Xplora]

Don't try claim Jedi as an excuse; Red Five, standing by....

[high_tea]

Sorry for that rubbish post above, I can't seem to fix it. My point being, that it should not matter what my religion is, and as such the copper has no right to inquire. Mere inquiry implies potential discrimination.
The Pastafarians proved this quite nicely in their campaign. All religions have arbitrary rules, and my personal one should not be treated with less respect as a result. Th Jedi Knights also received official recognition after the last census.

Shrug. The statute doesn't say anything about how big the religious group has to be, or how widely recognised or anything like that. It does, however, require that you wear some sort of headwear that gets in the way of wearing a helmet. A general religious prohibition on wearing any headwear, for example, wouldn't enliven the exemption. Nor would having dreadlocks or something, as I understand it. Which is a pretty whacky result. I don't think much of how this exemption was drafted.

[high_tea]

The joys of inflammatory behaviour and remarks Yep the religious exemption is just gold. I reckon you might get something up in the High Court if you hired an expensive enough barrister. There is clear discrimination where a Sikh's head does not need to be protected and an Anglican's head does.

This hypothetical constitutional challenge is doomed. Restrictions on the legislative powers of states are few, and MHLs don't run into any of them.

[Ken Ho]

As noted, I'm required to wear a hat, which gets in the way of my helmet.
As for the state having a say, while politicians and teh general public too often forget about at little thing called the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, lucky for us all, the judiciary never does.

[Xplora]

It's not a separation of powers issue, it's a "appeal escalation" issue. High Court is the best place to get some very real, overarching repeal of any laws.

[high_tea]

It's not a separation of powers issue, it's a "appeal escalation" issue. High Court is the best place to get some very real, overarching repeal of any laws.

Uh huh. On what grounds would you have this law invalidated? Discrimination is no answer; I'm not aware of state legislation ever being struck down for being discriminatory per se (except for s92 issues, which clearly don't apply).

[Ken Ho]

My point was, that once the legislation is enacted, then intention of the minister becomes irrelevant. It's the way the court interprets it that counts. I'm just seeing a glance for an Un-intended consequence. Which btw , is punning on the fact that MHL had a ton of negative unintended consequence. I just want to re-dress the balances bit.