Election time voting against mandatory helmet laws.

[biker jk]

Ya got me, that WAS a troll. At least it wasn't tedious repetition of the same tiresome point from someone who seems to have signed up just to play in one topic spread over a few threads

I refrain from modding these bandwidth thieves because I'd lock 'em as soon as the same old arguments close the circle. Typically the third post of page two.

When I'm a mod everybody knows from the differnt coloured type and the donning of the [mod helmet].

Interesting you didn't pick on the real broken records who post the same tedious arguments against mandatory helmet laws. Says it all really.

[blundershot]

Australian Cycling Forums
For Australian and visiting cyclists from Road to MTB, to Track to Freestyle*

*Disclaimer: As long as you agree with the opinions expressed by Super Mod Mulga bill

[AUbicycles]

As a new user you may not have used the search yet and noticed that the helmet topic has been done to death. 95% of the arguments for and against have been presented numerous times before.

I know that it is frustrating that others don't agree with you however the value of the forums are to share and exchange views. It doesn't mean that others will agree. Also take note that new users need time to become familiar with the forums. While discussion is encouraged there are guidelines.

We don't like flaming here - so if you feel that there are personal attacks (as opposed to criticism of your arguments) then report the post and the mods will look at it.


Thanks Virtualis - we are different peopl, ride different bikes and have different ideas however cycling brings us together.

[Mean Machine]

I may have missed it, but is there any mention in this thread of any political parties/candidates with an anti compulsory helmets policy?
Is it even a federal election issue, or are the helmet laws state based?

I forgot the parties name (it has the word Liberal in it but it is not the Liberal party) but they are against mandatory helmet laws. I didn't read about how they want to repeal them since they are a state issue but for interest they are also against:
* current speed limits (they are too low)
* compulsory seat belt laws
* internet censorship
* criminalisation of of "victimless crimes" such as Riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet or BASE jumping from city buildings
amongst other things that it is not appropriate to mention on a public forum

That would surely be the Liberal Democratic Party.

[blundershot]

AUbicycles, interesting that you felt the need to state your own position on helmet laws as you tried to diffuse this...

Thanks Virtualis

[The Womble]

AUbicycles removed my insult

[AUbicycles]

I wrote in my PM reply to blundershot that he has incorrectly assumed I voiced my opinion on this topic here.

I did not write

Thanks Virtualis

Rather I wrote

Thanks Virtualis - we are different peopl, ride different bikes and have different ideas however cycling brings us together.

You have misquoted and misunderstood that I was supporting the views of Virtualis that we should not be arguing.

--

Another stupid post here was just removed... and this whole helmet thread is causing more upset than it is worth... so please calm down - show respect even if others have different opinions and be friendly.

[blundershot]

I am willing to accept I may have confused your comment as referring to the middle of Virtualis post which is totally different than the beginning and the end - the start and end I totally agree with.

Perhaps, as it only a very small (tho loud) minority of cyclists who against helmet laws in Aus, the need for these anti helmet threads are past their use by date...

[rustguard]

Well being new to the forum you may think that these posts are loud but in forum speak 'IF THEY WERE LOUD THEY WOULD BE TYPED LIKE THIS' sorry to shout like that it was for example only no offense intended.

[blundershot]

haha! I got a few of the LOUD ones, but a mod modified or deleted them...

not totally new, been lurking in the WA Forum for over a year, think I might head back there, much quieter

[il padrone]

This is my main issue with those who oppose the helmet laws as they stand. It appears as a political move from the right-libertarians (supported by their constant claims about the 'Nanny State').

I can assure you I'm a long way from right liberrtarianism (whatever that's supposed to be - I believe a lot on the 'left' are concerned about civil liberties too).

Oh, and I generally detest a lot of what people are complaning about as the 'nanny state' as well. So I guess I'm cracking a hole in that theory. Sick of the name calling anyway. Pffft.

[il padrone]

I guess its why a lot of people only visit here once in a while (no one I chat to online and cycles in Perth comes here...)..
I think its time I left this space for you lot

Goodbye then

[blundershot]

I guess its why a lot of people only visit here once in a while (no one I chat to online and cycles in Perth comes here...)..
I think its time I left this space for you lot

Goodbye then

you guys are pretty keen on seeing off the nay-sayers...

[toolonglegs]

Wow...lot of new angles on this helmut debate.
Really interesting stuff!.

[vitualis]

How can we say 'for certain that compulsory helmets laws definitely do not promote the uptake of cycling'? I see no evidence at all... (except for perhaps a few hard core right-libertarians who may feel it impinges their rights)

Increasing the cost of an activity has two possible effects (when all other factors remain the same): (i) no effect, or (ii) the increased cost serves as a disincentive.

Are you seriously arguing that compulsory helmet laws encourage the uptake of cycling in the non-cycling public?

The point I was making in my last post is that the debate on the interpretation of the historical correlation between cycling rates and helmet laws is largely irrelevant. If we want to promote cycling as mainstream form of transportation then we should adopt the sort of policies that encourage it; this includes removing mandatory helmet laws. This is not to say that helmets are useless or some sort of infringement on rights. Rather, it is supporting a pragmatic set of principles and law that support cycling not just for enthusiasts but in the mainstream.

Addit:
I do not consider myself someone who agrees with the libertarian conception of rights or government. However, you might want to revise your use of the term "hard core right-libertarian" as many policies that we would associate with the "hard core right" would be reviled by true libertarians.

Regards.

[blundershot]

Are you seriously arguing that compulsory helmet laws encourage the uptake of cycling in the non-cycling public?
Regards.

Are you seriously arguing that compulsory helmet laws discourage the uptake of cycling in the non-cycling public?
Regards

[jules21]

Interesting point. I'd expect a successful hire scheme to spark an interest in cycling in people that wouldn't have otherwise taken it up. Wouldn't you?

no. most people seem to own bikes, they just don't ride them. the Bike Share scheme is a sideshow to the issue of broader cycling participation.

[il padrone]

That may be the case. However one of the side effects of the Velib bikeshare in Paris has been that there has been a boom in bicycle salles in Paris bike shops. People have taken the Velib for a ride, when it has suited their needs and after a while have enjoyed it so much that they've decided a bike of their own is what they need. This certainly adds to particicpation.

Also the Bikeshare is for people who are visiting the CBD - both tourists who need local transport in the city, and CBD workers who have not cycled to work and use the bikes to get about at different times during their day.

[trailgumby]

Are you seriously arguing that compulsory helmet laws encourage the uptake of cycling in the non-cycling public?
Regards.

Are you seriously arguing that compulsory helmet laws discourage the uptake of cycling in the non-cycling public?
Regards

He might not, but I've recently come to the view that it does. I believe it acts as a brake on uptake.

However, it does not do so directly. It is an influence. The evidence is anecdotal, but I believe it contributes to the view held by many that cycling is "dangerous", the rationale being that otherwise there would be no need for a mandatory helmet law.

When you see that 30% of non-cyclists are discouraged from cycling by its perceived dangers, I believe a fair chunk of that (let's call it half to two-thirds) would fade away over time if you removed the helmet requirement.

The spectacularly poor performance of the Melbourne Bike Share Scheme pilot is ample evidence of the impact of mandatory helmet laws.

[blundershot]

I don't think a safety law should be repealed just to shift public perception

[il padrone]

Didn't motorcyclists get the daytime running lights rule repealed? Because they (part of the 'public') believed it did not add to their safety and they rebelled against it.

As I've said before, when it comes to the public, we need to do everything possible to make cycling easier.

[jules21]

Didn't motorcyclists get the daytime running lights rule repealed? Because they (part of the 'public') believed it did not add to their safety and they rebelled against it.

they did. i think that was dumb - i *always* ride my motorbike (which i haven't for a while, but that's a different story) with lights on - you're mad not to. but motorcycle advocacy groups are militantly anti-regulation and these issues just become about stopping the thin edge of the regulatory wedge, rather than about the validity of the requirement. i think cyclists are more reasonable and that is to their credit.

the motorcycle lobby is a complete rabble as well.

[rider007]

I came to Australia from East Europe and when I've been told that it's a law to wear helmet in Australia at first I thought it's a joke. I was shocked to realize it is not!

[TheSkyMovesSideways]

i *always* ride my motorbike (which i haven't for a while, but that's a different story) with lights on - you're mad not to. but motorcycle advocacy groups are militantly anti-regulation and these issues just become about stopping the thin edge of the regulatory wedge, rather than about the validity of the requirement.

Here's the thing: Say a car driver changes lanes without looking, hitting a motorcyclist and knocking them off their bike. It was during the day and the motorcyclist did not have their lights on. Who would you say is at fault? If 24-hour lights on were required by law, do you think the car driver would be held responsible?

That's why education is better than legislation. It doesn't allow offenders to get off because their victim didn't protect themselves. It also allows, for example, a motorcyclist with a blown headlight to ride to the garage during the day to get it fixed, an arguably perfectly reasonable thing to do.

[blundershot]

TheSkyMovesSideways you seem to be very keen on personal freedoms... helmets, motorcycle lights... Wondering if there are any more..

What are your views on fishing in marine parks? 4WDing in national parks? 4WDing on beaches? Any other freedoms you feel may have been infringed by authority?