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

[Ross]

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"

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.

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

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.

[DavidS]

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

[human909]

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.

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.

[twizzle]

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!

[Ross]

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

No headline this time, don't want Xplora thinking I have an agenda...

[lturner]

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.

[HelmutHerr]

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.

[Mulger bill]

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?

[Xplora]

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.

[DavidS]

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

[Biffidus]

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.

[HelmutHerr]

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?

But we're not talking about other activities. We're talking about cycling.

I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it's hypocritical or unfair to target cycling in particular for compulsory safety laws, just that since that's what we have, there are other ways of viewing it.

That said...

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.

...that would be disastrous!

For good or ill, Australia's economy and society relies on motorised vehicles, while bicycles are mostly recreational.

I truly wish that was a good argument for a more responsible auto culture, but there simply isn't any serious comparison between mandatory bike helmet laws that mildly inconvenience cyclists, and laws that would severely cripple road transport.

[HelmutHerr]

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.

Au contraire!

[Mulger bill]

But we're not talking about other activities. We're talking about cycling.

Why just cycling? If we're serious about the drain on the public purse from catastrophic events, why not legislate protective gear for all?

[HelmutHerr]

Why just cycling? If we're serious about the drain on the public purse from catastrophic events, why not legislate protective gear for all?

Because it's a cycling forum, and I have zero interest in discussing the rights or wrongs of MHLs. I made an observation about economics, and that's all, because these debates will go forever once they stray into what could be instead of what is.

Should we legalise pot because booze is more harmful? Or is that an argument for banning booze too?

Should seatbelts be mandatory? Then what about airbags? Or texting while driving?

Nope - when I want to discuss those topics I'll go somewhere else, because here I want to talk about cycling stuff, and the cycling stuff is that helmets are mandatory, and one justification for that is economic.

So the only relevant question is whether that economic outcome is worth the restrictions on the choices of cyclists, and since I don't mind wearing a helmet (and owe my life to one), I don't object to it, which makes me neutral on the topic - not a road safety Brownshirt forcing others to follow my decisions.

[human909]

Why just cycling? If we're serious about the drain on the public purse from catastrophic events, why not legislate protective gear for all?

Because it's a cycling forum, and I have zero interest in discussing the rights or wrongs of MHLs. I made an observation about economics, and that's all, because these debates will go forever once they stray into what could be instead of what is.

Regardless whether it is a cycling forum or not we need to consider what is normal legislative behaviour. Your argument does not stand up in the context of how every other activity that has similar levels of risk.

[Ross]

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.

Yes, unfortunately we need laws because, to put it bluntly (and not directing this at anyone specifically), people generally are too stupid to work stuff out for themselves so we need an authority to do it for us. That's why we have speed limits, mandantory seat belt laws, DUI and pretty much most other laws. We need protecting from ourselves (our actions) and need punishing (fines and jail in extreme cases) if we don't obey the law.

Again, I am just clarifying my position on the subject and putting forward points for discussion. Not trying to force anyone to support my POV, though of course not trying to discourage them either. I don't see myself like one of these religious types that knocks on people's doors and tries to force their beliefs on others.

I can surf the web and find dozens, possibly hundreds of "cites" to back up my views as I'm sure the anti-MHL people can as well. I think we should just agree that we have different views on the subject and that neither "side" is right or wrong.

[Xplora]

Ross ^^
Am I to take it that your parents, your spouse, your kids, yourself - are all too stupid to make decisions about their welfare? Get rid of Medicare and Centrelink - handing out free money for being out of work and free healthcare for sick people, because the new way forward is to take away their decision making powers! YAY! You can't lose your job or hurt yourself if you aren't allowed to make a decision that could result in those outcomes

It smacks of authoritarianism - and it doesn't work. You don't magically get better decision making from a group of people than another group of people. You only get control.

If you want to make decisions for the common good, you'll ban cars. They kill a lot more people, and you'll find that bike deaths and injuries will plummet because cars are responsible for lots of them.

[simonn]

You don't magically get better decision making from a group of people than another group of people.

Ummm.... yeah you do. Human civilization would not exist without specialization. You did not invent the alphabet or the language that allows you to read and write these posts, for instance.



It's not just the USA either.

[Kenzo]

The loss of people who need a MHL to make them wear a helmet - for cycling in elevated risk situations - will not result in a decrease in the avg IQ of the community.

[human909]

I can surf the web and find dozens, possibly hundreds of "cites" to back up my views as I'm sure the anti-MHL people can as well. I think we should just agree that we have different views on the subject and that neither "side" is right or wrong.

But it is your view that seeks to impose your will on others. This removal of a basic freedom that most of the world has.

[Xplora]

simonn - there is no group that has a monopoly over what is a good choice, and a bad choice. I'm perfected aware of how much a car accident hurts as a bike rider. I've been cleaned up twice. My understanding of riding is that if I honestly thought I needed a helmet every time I rode, regardless of the situation, because of risk to my HEAD, I would not ride. Ever. My brain is my livelihood.

Too many people are willing to absolve themselves of responsibility for their impact on others. A helmet doesn't prevent hospitalisation with a car accident. A helmet certainly doesn't prevent such a visit on collision with a pedestrian (ped will get destroyed by the bike at 40kph). The MHL is, at its heart, an attempt to pretend that the only risk involved in cycling to bother trying to prevent is catastrophic head injury - rather than focus on the real problem, crappy drivers who are incapable of seeing an object smaller than a CAR on the road

[damhooligan]

So the only relevant question is whether that economic outcome is worth the restrictions on the choices of cyclists, and since I don't mind wearing a helmet (and owe my life to one), I don't object to it, which makes me neutral on the topic - not a road safety Brownshirt forcing others to follow my decisions.

Is it worth it ?
In my opnion, no.
A restriction on the choice of a cyclist, is a restriction to cyclists.
Thats never a good thing, we should promote cycling

If the uptake in cycling would be higher, it would reduce traffic conjestion.
That is a fact, cause it is the case in many other countries.

A reduction of traffic conjestion has a positive effect on the economie.
For example , the folowing links has a number attached to the cost of conjestion ;
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/49948/ ... on-by-2020 .

If more people would ride, instead of driving, these costs could be less.
So even if the uptake would be increased by only 10%, thats stil a savings 100 million...

[Philipthelam]

All of you people just assume that you know how other people think. I post this as a person who has only started cycling recently so I know what it felt like seeing MHL as a non bike rider. All I am going to say is IN NO WAY DID MHL AFFECT MY DECISION TO START RIDING. It did not present a negative impression of cycling to me. MHL did not make me think that cycling was dangerous, or i was going to get hit, or I was definately going to fall and get hurt. All of you are overthinking it. I ride because I enjoy cycling and I started riding because I thought I would enjoy cycling.

And I'm not for or against MHL. I don't think about whether MHL is good or bad, I just wear a helmet. It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.

[simonn]

simonn - there is no group that has a monopoly over what is a good choice, and a bad choice. I'm perfected aware of how much a car accident hurts as a bike rider. I've been cleaned up twice. My understanding of riding is that if I honestly thought I needed a helmet every time I rode, regardless of the situation, because of risk to my HEAD, I would not ride. Ever. My brain is my livelihood.

Too many people are willing to absolve themselves of responsibility for their impact on others. A helmet doesn't prevent hospitalisation with a car accident. A helmet certainly doesn't prevent such a visit on collision with a pedestrian (ped will get destroyed by the bike at 40kph). The MHL is, at its heart, an attempt to pretend that the only risk involved in cycling to bother trying to prevent is catastrophic head injury - rather than focus on the real problem, crappy drivers who are incapable of seeing an object smaller than a CAR on the road

...all that said, you would more than likely get a better idea of the risks from a group of medical and road safety professionals (one group), then, well, self selected members of the public who post to a cycling forum (another group), random members of the public who can "I reckon" and "she'll be right" stuff (another group) and even experienced cyclists who may have had an accident where a "helmet saved their life".

So...