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

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:19 pm

damhooligan wrote:You say we all except something negative wil happen, so.. what's more negative then getting hit by a car... ??
Do we really accept this ??

You must not be a real human talking person, dam, because something negative will happen if you ride long enough. Flat tyre, near miss with a ped, attention from a dog, sunburnt legs... that doesn't mean you should expect to be hit by a car... maturity shows that life has ups and downs, and nothing is exempt from that. I was literally an inch from rear ending a Rodeo this morning, haven't ever felt my bike go sideways Mr Squiggle style until today. These things happen.

If I honestly thought a car hit was inevitable, I don't think I would ride. It hurts.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

by BNA » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:59 am

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Comedian » Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:59 am

This is an excellent video. What's more, I reckon it would save far more lives than MHL could ever hope to. There are nearly 300 drownings in Australia each year.

Can someone explain why this law should not be enacted?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujs6DJAMGp0&feature=g-all-lik[/youtube]
Once you can climb hills on a bike it's all downhill. :mrgreen:

Hopefully I'll know what that's like..... one day. :shock: :lol:

Image
User avatar
Comedian
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:37 pm

Comedian wrote:Can someone explain why this law should not be enacted?


I've used this argument before but apparently its not practical. I agree its not practical, but that is the point helmets aren't always practical either.

Furthermore if we are SERIOUS about every life matters then life jackets at the beach and swimming pools would certainly save far more lives. Sure beaches and swimming pools wont be as much fun, but its only recreation. :roll: On the other hand riding often has far more practical uses IF we let it flourish.
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:03 pm

It does make for an interesting thought. I didn't realise that water was that dangerous :shock: I would have thought that some further action would have been taken, since people need to commute a LOT more than swim - this seems like a major policy confusion...
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby damhooligan » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:27 pm

Xplora wrote:
damhooligan wrote:You say we all except something negative wil happen, so.. what's more negative then getting hit by a car... ??
Do we really accept this ??

You must not be a real human talking person, dam, because something negative will happen if you ride long enough. Flat tyre, near miss with a ped, attention from a dog, sunburnt legs... that doesn't mean you should expect to be hit by a car... maturity shows that life has ups and downs, and nothing is exempt from that. I was literally an inch from rear ending a Rodeo this morning, haven't ever felt my bike go sideways Mr Squiggle style until today. These things happen.

If I honestly thought a car hit was inevitable, I don't think I would ride. It hurts.


Define 'something' ...
To many variables... :D

let's say 'something' is a crash...
Just because you ride, it doesn't mean you crash...
Its not a garantee, it's a possibility.
No one is immune to it, but no one is destined either...
There are plenty of people that ride, and not crash.

But the mhl makes us think this possibility is a garantee....
Lets face it, we are not forced to wear a helmet because something can happen.
We are foced to wear it cause something wil happen (that the logic of this law... )
The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;
SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!
User avatar
damhooligan
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:43 pm

damhooligan wrote:
Xplora wrote:
damhooligan wrote:You say we all except something negative wil happen, so.. what's more negative then getting hit by a car... ??
Do we really accept this ??

You must not be a real human talking person, dam, because something negative will happen if you ride long enough. Flat tyre, near miss with a ped, attention from a dog, sunburnt legs... that doesn't mean you should expect to be hit by a car... maturity shows that life has ups and downs, and nothing is exempt from that. I was literally an inch from rear ending a Rodeo this morning, haven't ever felt my bike go sideways Mr Squiggle style until today. These things happen.

If I honestly thought a car hit was inevitable, I don't think I would ride. It hurts.


Define 'something' ...
To many variables... :D

let's say 'something' is a crash...
Just because you ride, it doesn't mean you crash...
Its not a garantee, it's a possibility.
No one is immune to it, but no one is destined either...
There are plenty of people that ride, and not crash.

But the mhl makes us think this possibility is a garantee....
Lets face it, we are not forced to wear a helmet because something can happen.
We are foced to wear it cause something wil happen (that the logic of this law... )

I'll let you find a dictionary for a common interpretation of the term "something" :lol:
You chose a crash, you've chosen to restrict my comment to an unlikely event that is not inevitable. Might even be a strawman in the corn field...

I agree with your final paragraph in full; there is additional psychology at play (and this is why I am antiMHL, because the law does more than put a helmet on a law abiding rider).
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:42 am

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

NZ coroner calls again for skiing helmets
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4074
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:04 pm

Ross wrote:http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/nz-coroner-calls-again-for-skiing-helmets/story-e6frfkui-1226499160901?from=public_rss

NZ coroner calls again for skiing helmets

...AND DID NOT CALL FOR IT TO BE MANDATORY. You sure you don't work for a newspaper? That's an incredible misreporting of the situation you've done :shock:
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:36 pm

I didn't misreport anything. I just cut and pasted a link and the corresponding headline as I thought it was relevant as the topic was about helmets, though it was obviously about skiing not cycling.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4074
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Ross wrote:I didn't misreport anything. I just cut and pasted a link and the corresponding headline as I thought it was relevant as the topic was about helmets, though it was obviously about skiing not cycling.

Misreporting is simple - representing another person's views incorrectly to support an agenda. You've supported helmet laws, and the coroner said that helmets would be a good idea for people in high risk skiing situations. Well DUH. If you are at a high risk of getting your head hit and causing damage that will be hard to treat quickly and properly, then maybe some OHS would be good. A road is a dramatically different situation to a remote alpine area.
If you were doing downhill MTB riding in a similar situation to a remote skiier/snowboarder, I'm sure that most people would agree with the idea of having a helmet on... but riding along a road isn't a low traction, low control situation like a rough downhill track.

I suggest that cycling isn't the hobby for you (and commuting on the road either) if you are so frightened of other road users... because hospital visits and broken bones are just as painful without hitting your head, and I'm not prepared to break bones just trying to ride to work. :idea:

It's disingenuous to imply that an article like that has any relevence to the MHL discussion when it has nothing to do with bikes, or how a helmet law would have changed things.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:58 am

You are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, Xplora. As part of the "discussion" about MHL I simply posted what I thought was a relevant link. Yes I believe in MHL but, unlike you (and others in this thread) I am not trying to convert people to my way of thinking and asserting that my views are right and anybody that opposes it must be wrong. I am simply adding links to relevant news articles as additional info/opinion for forum members to discuss.

You most probably are more likely to have a crash on a MTB while riding down some rough DH single track than riding a road bike on a road (I don't ride a MTB so can't really give any personal comparisons) but there are still a number of factors on the road that can cause/contribute to crashes. Some of these are debris on the road (sticks, rocks, stuff fallen off vehicles etc), potholes and of course contact with motor vehicles. You don't have to be going at high speed for any of these factors to cause/contribute to a crash.

I had a very low speed crash (walking pace) on my road bike a couple of months ago where I went flying over the handlebars and head first onto the road. The helmet I was wearing probably didn't save my life but (IMO) it sure helped me avoid serious injury. Another time I misjudged the height of a tree branch and headbutted it as I tried to duck under. Again, I probably wouldn't of been killed but (IMO) the helmet saved me from more serious injury. I haven't had any crashes involving motor vehicles (actually did have one about 30 years ago (pre-MHL!), pretty minor, a car failed to give way as I recall), I am more concerned about the lack of skills and bad cycling behaviour of commuter cyclists. So much that I will find another route to commute so as to avoid these riders.

If you don't want to wear a helmet ,well that's your decision, you and your family are the ones that will have to live with the consequences if things go wrong.

I liken MHL to insurance. Probably (hopefully) never going to need it but it's there if something bad happens.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4074
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:00 am

Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4074
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Percrime » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:41 am

Ross wrote: Another time I misjudged the height of a tree branch and headbutted it as I tried to duck under.


Actually you probably got the height right and ducked under perfectly. That body image stuff is hard wired into people and nearly everyone is really good at it. But you instinctively did not allow for the height of the helmet. Its very likely you had that accident BECAUSE you were wearing a helmet. I biff my helmet getting into the car all the time and never hit my head otherwise. (Grabbing stuff at track)

Whats psychologically interesting is that that did not occur to you as a cause. Because helmets are all positive I guess.
Percrime
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:25 am

Ross wrote:You are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, Xplora. As part of the "discussion" about MHL I simply posted what I thought was a relevant link.

If you do not want words and thoughts put forward for you, then do more than hyperlink with a very loaded comment. Yes, I'm allowed to see it for what it is, and you did nothing to imply that I was wrong - you commented badly, I caught you out. There is always more than just a sentence... there is depth to your thinking that you can't hide. Your comment proved it. It wasn't a relevent link. Start posting about how people did not hit their head doing things, and then I'll believe you aren't "just posting a link" :lol:

Your comment about insurance is hilarious - you realise that insurance is NEVER compulsory? OHS "insurance" and CTP "insurance" are not insurances, they are privately administered injury compensation funds. You can choose to self insure anything else, except these things. You are legally obliged to cover yourself for these areas. So calling it insurance is a bit funny :lol:
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:55 am

Xplora wrote:
Ross wrote:You are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, Xplora. As part of the "discussion" about MHL I simply posted what I thought was a relevant link.

If you do not want words and thoughts put forward for you, then do more than hyperlink with a very loaded comment. Yes, I'm allowed to see it for what it is, and you did nothing to imply that I was wrong - you commented badly, I caught you out. There is always more than just a sentence... there is depth to your thinking that you can't hide. Your comment proved it. It wasn't a relevent link. Start posting about how people did not hit their head doing things, and then I'll believe you aren't "just posting a link" :lol:


Did you bother to click on the link? If you did (which going from your coments I don't think you did), you will see the "comment" you attributed to me is the headline of the article. As I have already stated I just posted the link and the headline to the article, as a discussion point. Nowhere did I say "you must wear helmets" or anything else of a similar nature. As I said in my previous post I do believe in MHL, but that is just my belief and I don't try and force my view onto other people. You ask for my opinion on the subject and I will give it to you. I will even discuss the matter and listen to other people's opinions on the subject, even if they have an opposing view.

My second link was more with your argument then against, so I think that a pretty balanced view.

Xplora wrote:Your comment about insurance is hilarious - you realise that insurance is NEVER compulsory? OHS "insurance" and CTP "insurance" are not insurances, they are privately administered injury compensation funds. You can choose to self insure anything else, except these things. You are legally obliged to cover yourself for these areas. So calling it insurance is a bit funny :lol:


Glad you think my comparison to insurance was hilarious. :? it wasn't meant to be but after reading your comment and taking it into consideration I can now see how maybe it isn't a fair comparison. To wearing helmets I think yes, but to MHL then maybe not.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4074
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DavidS » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:08 pm

Ross wrote:If you don't want to wear a helmet ,well that's your decision,


No, it isn't my decision. Those who implemented the MHLs made sure of that, they made it illegal for me to make this decision and will fine me if I make this decision.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:45 am

Incipiently I was speaking to a recently arrived German friend of mine. I lent her a bike for her stay in exchange for a pint. :) I told her to go buy a government sponsored helmet from the vending machines or 7-eleven for $5. Unfortunately she didn't have a credit card and so was riding for a day or two without one.

The police did pull her up, because of her strong German accent and her sweet talking she didn't get a fine. But she did find it hilarious that she was lectured for ten minutes by the police how it is so very dangerous not to wear a helmet. And that she must wear a helmet for her own safety. :roll:

How much time do you think those policemen have likely spent on a bike compared to her who rode every day in Germany? It really is embarrassing. And maybe in Sydney you can get away without wearing a helmet but in Melbourne you can't. Police here do stop you and fine you.
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby twizzle » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:52 pm

human909 wrote:And maybe in Sydney you can get away without wearing a helmet but in Melbourne you can't. Police here do stop you and fine you.


While here you can ride an unsafe bicycle (lights, brakes etc.), but in Germany they will pull you over if your bicycle isn't "legal" and fine you.

How's that for persecution, all you fixie riders!
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:07 pm

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... g-helmets/

No headline this time, don't want Xplora thinking I have an agenda...
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4074
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby lturner » Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:26 pm

Ross wrote:Yes I believe in MHL but, unlike you (and others in this thread) I am not trying to convert people to my way of thinking and asserting that my views are right and anybody that opposes it must be wrong.


To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.
lturner
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby HelmutHerr » Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:53 pm

lturner wrote:To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

The alternative view is that MHLs are a cheap way of protecting the investment every taxpayer has in public health.

If a helmet is the difference between a thousand dollars of emergency room precautionary treatment, and a million dollars in surgery and rehab, it's mostly about forcing everyone to not cost me lots of money unnecessarily.
HelmutHerr
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:16 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:14 pm

HelmutHerr wrote:
lturner wrote:To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

The alternative view is that MHLs are a cheap way of protecting the investment every taxpayer has in public health.

If a helmet is the difference between a thousand dollars of emergency room precautionary treatment, and a million dollars in surgery and rehab, it's mostly about forcing everyone to not cost me lots of money unnecessarily.


Been said before, but if we follow that line to the terminal, there's lots of other activities that will qualify for PPE. How far are you prepared to comply?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26345
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:18 pm

HelmutHerr wrote:
lturner wrote:To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

The alternative view is that MHLs are a cheap way of protecting the investment every taxpayer has in public health.

If a helmet is the difference between a thousand dollars of emergency room precautionary treatment, and a million dollars in surgery and rehab, it's mostly about forcing everyone to not cost me lots of money unnecessarily.

An even cheaper way would be banning all forms of motorised transport above 30kmh. Cars are involved in an ENORMOUSLY greater number of fatalities and injuries. They are also an environmental disaster. I don't care about green stuff much, just another nail in the auto coffin. Absolutely any argument for "public good" gets decimated because cars fail to tick the boxes. Ironically, the ONLY convincing argument I can muster up to support the MHL is because "car drivers are imbeciles who can't be trusted at any point in time".

It's OK to have an agenda. It's not OK to have a whinge when you get caught out pretending to be impartial when you are not. 8)
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DavidS » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:33 pm

HelmutHerr wrote:
lturner wrote:To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

The alternative view is that MHLs are a cheap way of protecting the investment every taxpayer has in public health.

If a helmet is the difference between a thousand dollars of emergency room precautionary treatment, and a million dollars in surgery and rehab, it's mostly about forcing everyone to not cost me lots of money unnecessarily.


Where does this silly argument end? Do we mandate safety equipment for crossing the road (it's dangerous you know), how about mandatory DNA tests for anyone who wants to be a parent? Many very costly medical conditions, like risk of cardio-vascular disease, are closely related to genetic disposition.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Biffidus » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:34 pm

Has anyone mentioned the increased skin cancer risk caused by MHL? I'd rather wear a wide brimmed hat than a helmet but you can't really wear both.
User avatar
Biffidus
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: RADelaide

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers