Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[human909]

My argument in this case was never about MHLs per se, simply that there is not a lot of evidence that increased cycling results in better public health outcomes

There is more evidence for this than there is evidence support your previous claim that mandatory helmets the lead to positive health outcomes.

It seems that when you make claims you don't need "evidence" when others make claims their evidence is apparently "not a lot".

[simonn]

My argument in this case was never about MHLs per se, simply that there is not a lot of evidence that increased cycling results in better public health outcomes

There is more evidence for this than there is evidence support your previous claim that mandatory helmets the lead to positive health outcomes.

It seems that when you make claims you don't need "evidence" when others make claims their evidence is apparently "not a lot".

Where did I make that claim?

[human909]

My argument in this case was never about MHLs per se, simply that there is not a lot of evidence that increased cycling results in better public health outcomes

There is more evidence for this than there is evidence support your previous claim that mandatory helmets the lead to positive health outcomes.

It seems that when you make claims you don't need "evidence" when others make claims their evidence is apparently "not a lot".

Where did I make that claim?

I'm sorry. I was under the very strong impression that you did think MHLs led to positive health outcomes. After all that is what we were discussing. It seems I am mistaken, and that we are both in agreement that MHLs do not lead to positive health outcomes.

[il padrone]

No, it was mick243 that was making that claim. In the too-ing and fro-ing we've just got it a bit mixed up.

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.

Twaddle again. The easiest way to "increase the geater good" by this logic is to simply outlaw bicycle-riding

[Xplora]

Cycling doesn't necessarily lead to better population level health outcomes... and MHL most certainly doesn't lead to better health outcomes for the population either.

Cycling does lead to better health outcomes for the individual... a helmet can lead to better health outcomes IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING THE HEAD... but MHL can't be shown to create better health outcomes for the individual, because there is no certainty that the rider will suffer a severe head collision, unlike the certainty of improved cardiovascular health from riding.

We can all acknowledge there is a difference between individual outcomes and population wide outcomes, because there is inevitability for accidents across the population that we don't see for the individual.

The issue at this point is why does a MHL fail to produce better population wide outcomes? I assume that the bell curve creates different answers for each individual, but it seems logical that Australia should have much much much better injury outcomes for cyclists, and that's just not there. On the balance of that, it seems reasonable to conclude that helmets should be a choice that is encouraged but not legislated, because there are other spheres that do not receive such attention, like drowning, ladder injuries, elderly falls... the runs are on the board, and it is clearly discrimination to select cyclists and motorcyclists for such attention, particularly given that it has been noncycling groups pushing for the laws in the first place.

Padrone has posted links relating to such lobbying from motorist groups for decades over a great number of things. The helmet is there to protect the tender sensibilities of the motorist - not the tender brain tissue of the rider. They feel less guilty being aggressive towards someone who they think stands a chance of surviving a collision. No one is dumb enough to think a helmetless child will survive being hit by a car, few think an adult helmetless rider will survive either. The focus was put on the rider, even though they either bear the responsibility for their own stupidity (I've flipped over a BMW at 40kph, I was an idiot that time) or, most of the time, the car needs to be controlled better. We don't have that many laws to protect people from themselves. It's mostly to protect someone from another, and this law is the same. It is to protect the driver from feeling responsible for highly vulnerable people on the road. They don't need to care about others if they are supposed to walk on the footpath, or wear helmets to reduce brain trauma. Never mind that the cyclist and ped doesn't create any risk to themselves or each other without the car there. If helmets were an easy choice, they wouldn't need MHLs. It's clearly not that simple.

[simonn]

MHL can't be shown to create better health outcomes for the individual, because there is no certainty that the rider will suffer a severe head collision,

And seatbelts? Helmets for motorcyclists? The uncertain nature of life is why we use safety equipment - if we knew an incident was going to occur we would avoid driving/riding and thus avoid the incident completely.

unlike the certainty of improved cardiovascular health from riding.

Not necessarily the case. This assumes that it is the unfit that start cycling, which is not necessarily the case. There are plenty of fit people who jump on a bike to ride to the shops, or whatever, and it has no real impact on their fitness. This is the kind of riding MHLs are apparently meant to stop. Road riders and MTBs generally do not seem to be phased about the idea of helmets.

because there are other spheres that do not receive such attention, like drowning, ladder injuries,

Not really true...

http://www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.ohsrep.org.au/faqs/ohs-reps- ... egulations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Xplora]

The resolution to the OHS stuff is not a full helmet and back brace, or caribiner/harness setup to prevent the fall. It IS achievable. Or a scaffold instead of a ladder.

The resolution of the swimming pool register doesn't cover rivers, beaches, dams, creeks, stormwater drains, buckets/// lifejackets all around would be the same solution as the helmet.

Practicality is mercifully absent from the bicycle; yes, the helmet helps, but it's not PRACTICAL when faced with the forces created by a car. A full motorcycle helmet is more sensible if you are trying to resist high speed impacts, but it's not considered practical.

Again and again, its a logical contortionist act to make these laws seem reasonable. It's not Your logic, Simon. You're smarter than that. But it's the logic used to support them.

[simonn]

Again and again, its a logical contortionist act to make these laws seem reasonable. It's not Your logic, Simon. You're smarter than that. But it's the logic used to support them.

I am not attempting to make MHLs seem reasonable. Trying to claim that ladder usage and swimming is not regulated is out and out wrong though, and does not therefore work as an argument against MHL laws.

[il padrone]

Trying to claim that ladder usage and swimming is not regulated is out and out wrong though, and does not therefore work as an argument against MHL laws.

Outside of the workplace, ladder use IS unregulated. Outside of the backyard pool and commercial/public swimming pool, swimming IS also pretty much unregulated (well there are flags at the surf beaches, but no compulsion to adhere to their direction).

[Xplora]

Trying to claim that ladder usage and swimming is not regulated is out and out wrong though, and does not therefore work as an argument against MHL laws.

It is only regulated in a very small context - like racing, or participating in a sportif, etc etc. There is no narrow regulation of the helmet situation.

[Mulger bill]

Science fail. It is not up to anyone to disprove the notion that a higher level of cycling results in better public health outcomes. It is up to the those making the claim to prove it

This is very good to see, and also so very ironic. It is not up to anyone to prove that people are able to safely go riding a bike without a helmet. All that people are saying on here is that the case should have been clearly proven 24 years ago that there was clear evidence for the need for MHLs. It was not, never has been, and over time the case continues to be disproven.

It is beyond time to dismiss this arbitrary and unscientific law.

Thanks Pete, saved me some typing. +1

[yugyug]

Pleased to see some common sense from Her Majesty's Government of the UK:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48526" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wonder if the good folk at the RMS preparing their report to Mr Gay on bicycle registration will be as thorough....

[yugyug]

By the way, a few pages back there was some discussion regarding the enforcement of the MHL. I've come to the opinion that for political reasons the MHLs will never be repealed until there is widespread lack of adherence and enforcement to the extent the law becomes redundant. Il Padrone gave the example of what happened in the NT to show how this can happen.

But what do we know about police enforcement policies? How can we find out? Is the kind of thing thats published somewhere or is it the kind of thing that a journalist can call up a senior policeman and get an answer? Or are such police operations/policies secret?

(In the last 3 years riding helmetless in Sydney I have been stopped more than half a dozen times, but only cautioned and then fined once, by cycle cops on a Bourke St cyclepath "sting". Who authorises that kind of stuff or more pertinently, did someone advise the other cops at some point to not bother fining me?)

[DavidS]

They seem pretty enthusiastic about enforcing the laws in Victoria . . . all's the pity.

DS

[TTar]

(In the last 3 years riding helmetless in Sydney I have been stopped more than half a dozen times, but only cautioned and then fined once, by cycle cops on a Bourke St cyclepath "sting". Who authorises that kind of stuff or more pertinently, did someone advise the other cops at some point to not bother fining me?)

The time you were fined, were you allowed to continue riding helmetless?

The nearest motoring parallel I can think of is being pinged for driving without a seatbelt, but in that instance you would have to do up your seatbelt to continue driving legally. If they did let you continue on your merry way, it does make a mockery of MHL. They really should have advised you to walk your bike and followed you for a distance to ensure compliance. And if you've only ever been cautioned previously and mostly ignored, you've gotta wonder how serious anyone is about MHL.

BTW, were you required to produce ID when fined? I'm not sure, but I don't think you're legally required to carry ID in NSW and if you don't have any, do they simply ask you your name and details? What was there to stop you saying your name was yigyig and your address was BV's new Sydney address?

As for the decisions regarding enforcement, I do remember the first ostentatious crackdown in Sydney occurred in the middle of a power play between Barry (pass the Grange) O'Farrell and Clover Moore over bike lanes and cycling in general. Police Commissioner Scippione felt compelled to declare a couple of days later that the very large crackdown was just a routine police operation.

Who am I to doubt that? But the haphazard nature of enforcement operations since, primarily in the CBD only, do seem to be a cosmetic "going through the motions", "keeping up appearances" exercise.

[yugyug]

(In the last 3 years riding helmetless in Sydney I have been stopped more than half a dozen times, but only cautioned and then fined once, by cycle cops on a Bourke St cyclepath "sting". Who authorises that kind of stuff or more pertinently, did someone advise the other cops at some point to not bother fining me?)

The time you were fined, were you allowed to continue riding helmetless?

The caution and fine were 10 minutes apart by different cops. The first guy took my details, but he was a reasonable chap and, after a discussion as to my reasons for riding helmetless, didn't stop me from riding away helmetless. Up the path I got done again, resulting in a fine, and, when those cops got the sense I was about to ride away again, threatened me with "continuance of an offence" which might be something kind of physical (!) and a trip to the station. I walked my bike away - they knew I was going to hop on again after the first corner, just didn't want to see it themselves.

Other times I was stopped but not cautioned varies - sometimes I rode away, sometimes not. Depends on the cop and what I thought was appropriate.

BTW, were you required to produce ID when fined? I'm not sure, but I don't think you're legally required to carry ID in NSW and if you don't have any, do they simply ask you your name and details?

Not sure, but am happy to oblige. At the time I was thinking I might challenge in court so I wanted everything to be above board.

As for the decisions regarding enforcement, I do remember the first ostentatious crackdown in Sydney occurred in the middle of a power play between Barry (pass the Grange) O'Farrell and Clover Moore over bike lanes and cycling in general. Police Commissioner Scippione felt compelled to declare a couple of days later that the very large crackdown was just a routine police operation.

Who am I to doubt that? But the haphazard nature of enforcement operations since, primarily in the CBD only, do seem to be a cosmetic "going through the motions", "keeping up appearances" exercise.

My feelings precisely. And I think that time you mentioned was when I got fined.

[Drizt]

Is wearing a helmet such an issue?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[il padrone]

Is wearing a helmet such an issue?

This question has been talked about at length on here. For the 1-2% of Australians that regularly ride a bike, probably not. For the other 98% of Australians that do not ride very much, it may well be a factor.

[human909]

Is wearing a helmet such an issue?

You made THAT your first post on this forum!?

I'll assume that you naively asked that question. In which case the answer is a resounding YES. It has been shown to be the case time and time again both here and overseas. If it wasn't an issue surely cyclists across the globe would wear one. Surely it wouldn't have drastically reduced cycling in Australia when it was made mandatory.

So yes it is an issue. Especially if you like cycling and want to see more people cycling.

[Drizt]

People astound me. Such little things become such big issues for them. The law is unlikely to change so why waste time and energy on the topic.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[il padrone]

See H909's post above - last sentence.

[TTar]

People astound me. Such little things become such big issues for them. The law is unlikely to change so why waste time and energy on the topic.

You made THAT your second post on this forum!?!?

It may be a "little thing" for you, but not for the large number of posters on this thread.

The law is very close to changing in QLD and it's precisely these sort of discussions that will bring about change elsewhere.

I don't know what your motivation is, Drizty, but it really seems like a waste of your "time and energy".

[TTar]

Other times I was stopped but not cautioned varies - sometimes I rode away, sometimes not. Depends on the cop and what I thought was appropriate.

I have no idea if it's legally significant, but that's what I find so curious about this regulation in NSW; inconsistent implementation.

Can any legal types hereabouts tell us if you could argue it's an "invalid" or "inappropriate" law or something because of the whacky way it's applied?

[high_tea]

I'd be happy to field that one.

No.

[il padrone]

People astound me. Such little things become such big issues for them. The law is unlikely to change so why waste time and energy on the topic.

You made THAT your second post on this forum!?!?

Agent-provacateur ??