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 Philipthelam » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:28 pm

Comedian wrote:I've used this example before... my late 20's neice lives 6k from the CBD. She has bikepath from one door to the other. She'll tell you straight out she won't do it because having to redo her hair at work aint going to happen. It's my belief that there are lots of people like this. That's why I'd like this law repealed. It would make is safer for all riders.

Tell her to save time by not doing her hair in the morning (therefore she doesn't have to redo it), save a lot of time by cycling to work as opposed to by car/public transport, and do her hair at work :)
and look at this
http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/ ... 20Help.pdf

DavidS wrote:Philipthelam, why do you think cycling is dangerous? Actually, I should rephrase that, why do you think cycling is so dangerous that we have to be mandated to wear helmets?


It's not that I think cycling is dangerous, it's more that is appears dangerous to others due to all these things happening. If MHL are gone these views will still be in place unless some motorists behaviors change.
And I don't think that we have to be mandated to wear helmets. I'm going to say again that I don't support MHL. I don't think that MHL have any benefit at all. I just think that the effects of it are over exaggerated.

DavidS wrote:To counterbalance your opinion on MHLs, I did not ride a bike until a few years ago. One of the main reasons was the MHLs. I eventually gave up and bought a helmet and stated riding again. For me it was a big turn off, turned me off riding for at least a decade. As someone else pointed out, it is no coincidence that our bike share schemes are failing while internationally bike share schemes are booming. In worse weather, on more congested roads, bike share is booming on London, but not in flat Melbourne with it's temperate climate and wide roads. The only explanation is the helmet laws.


I know what you mean, but that's because you are in the older generation (no offence) that was riding without helmets. The change may have been very different and discouraging for you but now more and more people would start riding having always worn a helmet as a kid. The way MHL affected you won't be affecting others in the same way in the future. Yes MHL does affect bike share schemes, because it would be very annoying always carrying around a helmet for when you might want to ride, and then unlike having your own bike where you can put the helmet on after riding to your destination, you would have to carry it around.
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

by BNA » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:02 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby damhooligan » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:02 pm

Philipthelam wrote:I know what you mean, but that's because you are in the older generation (no offence) that was riding without helmets. The change may have been very different and discouraging for you but now more and more people would start riding having always worn a helmet as a kid. The way MHL affected you won't be affecting others in the same way in the future. Yes MHL does affect bike share schemes, because it would be very annoying always carrying around a helmet for when you might want to ride, and then unlike having your own bike where you can put the helmet on after riding to your destination, you would have to carry it around.


True, the new/younger generation is being raised with the MHL.
and yes, they are being raised in the believe that riding with a helmet is normal.

However , this doesnt change the fact that the mhl is not a good thing.
You may feel that the negative effects are being exaggerated, i think the opposite..
The problem is there is not enough evidence either way.

The 'positive effects' of the mhl are mainly based on assumptions.
as there is no clear cut proof it works.
And mainly the one that, when you hit your head, you are protected.

Sure, when you hit your head , a helmet sounds good...
but , most people seem to forget that a helmet only offers a limited amount of protection.
But what annoys me most , is the assumption we need a helmet.
as it can only mean one thing, we wil hit our heads...

It's not realistic to assume, that everybody that rides wil have an accident that involves hitting your head.
its realistic to assume, that you can ride a bike without hitting your head, but the law dissagrees.
And as people have trust in the law, they trust that when you ride, you will hit your head.
so a helmet is needed....
Either that, or choose the safer option, and drive.
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 human909 » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:35 pm

Philipthelam wrote:The change may have been very different and discouraging for you but now more and more people would start riding having always worn a helmet as a kid. The way MHL affected you won't be affecting others in the same way in the future.


Alternatively the kids may not be riding at all because cycling is constantly being portrayed as dangerous, emphasised by the fact that helmets are mandated. This is closer to reality than your conjecture.

Helmets are not cool and this makes cycling not cool. $hit, government advertising emphasises this.

Image

Compare that the images that appear in a simple google search for "couple on bike".
Last edited by human909 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Comedian » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:28 pm

Philipthelam wrote:
Comedian wrote:I've used this example before... my late 20's neice lives 6k from the CBD. She has bikepath from one door to the other. She'll tell you straight out she won't do it because having to redo her hair at work aint going to happen. It's my belief that there are lots of people like this. That's why I'd like this law repealed. It would make is safer for all riders.

Tell her to save time by not doing her hair in the morning (therefore she doesn't have to redo it), save a lot of time by cycling to work as opposed to by car/public transport, and do her hair at work :)
and look at this
http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/ ... 20Help.pdf

[/quote]

How about you tell her and I'll watch from a safe distance. You can try but I'm pretty sure she'll tell you to go and make love to yourself. I'm betting that if you tried to tell many women and men in that demographic how to live their lives you'd get the same response. I think it's fair enough too.

You MHL lubbers just don't get it. MHL's kill utility cycling. It's that simple.
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 high_tea » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:11 pm

Comedian wrote:You MHL lubbers just don't get it. MHL's kill utility cycling. It's that simple.


Uh huh. If you expect MHL repeal to unleash a tidal wave of utility cycling in Brisbane, forget it. What's the target demographic? Someone who's put off my helmets for whatever reason, but isn't worried about crap driver attitudes, "the heat" (something the average inhabitant spends 6 months of the year whining about. Me, I came here via Townsville and KL, so I think they all need to HTFU but anyway) and the fact that it isn't exactly flat. Oh, and has a nice door-to-door cyclepath commute.

'Course, the MHL is a nice, soft target. It doesn't get much love on cycling forums and repeal is a nice easy, stroke-of-the-pen kind of change. The single best thing about repeal is that people might be tempted to hop into some of the big issues. I'm not holding my breath on either part of that hypothetical...
high_tea
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby damhooligan » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:22 pm

high_tea wrote:
Comedian wrote:You MHL lubbers just don't get it. MHL's kill utility cycling. It's that simple.


Uh huh. If you expect MHL repeal to unleash a tidal wave of utility cycling in Brisbane, forget it....


I would not expect one either... as the wound of the mhl damage needs time to heal.
But, it wil start with one, just one.
One that now wil say, no helmet, mmm wil give it a go.
folowed by another one, and another...

Give it a year or so, and you wil see the uptake wil increase !
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 Philipthelam » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:40 pm

Comedian wrote:How about you tell her and I'll watch from a safe distance. You can try but I'm pretty sure she'll tell you to go and make love to yourself. I'm betting that if you tried to tell many women and men in that demographic how to live their lives you'd get the same response. I think it's fair enough too.

You MHL lubbers just don't get it. MHL's kill utility cycling. It's that simple.

I'm sorry that I offended you. Does your neice actually enjoy cycling? If she does then she will turn up to work feeling refreshed and happy. If not, then there will be no benefit at all and she will turn up to work all sweaty and exhausted. I'm assuming you know the answer to this question and yet you still tried to encourage her to go cycle to work? I now know why you would already know her response if someone told her what I posted.
And your post just proves why cycling numbers are so low in Australia. How are we going to encourage more people to cycle and change their lives for the better if there are "many women and men in that demographic" who are so stubborn as to try something new?

I don't know what a "MHL lubber" is but I will say again as I have done in my other posts I don't support MHL. I don't think that MHL have any benefits at all. At the moment I don't care whether we have MHL or not.

damhooligan wrote:It's not realistic to assume, that everybody that rides wil have an accident that involves hitting your head.
its realistic to assume, that you can ride a bike without hitting your head, but the law dissagrees.
And as people have trust in the law, they trust that when you ride, you will hit your head.
so a helmet is needed....
Either that, or choose the safer option, and drive.

I see your point there. However I (and this is only me) see helmets as more of a precautionary thing, like it won't be likely that I will hit my head but if I do I "might" be better off. I see them like seat belts in cars, how you have to wear shin pads in a football game, pads/gloves/helmets/box in cricket, motocycle helmets ..... and even cycling gloves (where everyone recommends to wear gloves in case of a fall)

At the moment I don't care whether we have MHL or not. Either way I'll still wear a helmet. They are comfy on my head and I feel a little "naked" If I ride without one :)

For everyone that has posted in this thread the big question is- After 200 long pages of this "Mandatory helmet laws and stuff" discussion, What have you done to get this law changed?


sorry human909, I can't see the last two images you posted, it comes up with a "red X image" box...
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby Philipthelam » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:46 pm

high_tea wrote:The single best thing about repeal is that people might be tempted to hop into some of the big issues.


+1

That's what I have been trying to say.I think we are all too focused on MHL. You would gain much more benefit by actually promoting cycling and educating others then campainging long and hard to change MHL and then expecting that all these problems will magically disappear.
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby winstonw » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:01 pm

Philipthelam wrote:If not, then there will be no benefit at all and she will turn up to work all sweaty and exhausted.


Not to mention sunburnt, unless she wears a cap in summer.
How about the cold head complaint in winter? better wear a beanie
How about the wet hair in wet weather? better wear a rain jacket hood.
How about windy days?
How about vehicle exhaust fume smell in the hair?

hmmmm... just seems like that hair is going get messed up and smelly, period.
Honestly, only someone who has never ridden 5+km in Brisbane can delude themselves into believing their hair is going to look and smell the same at work as it did in front of the bathroom mirror at home.
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby damhooligan » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:43 pm

Philipthelam wrote:
high_tea wrote:The single best thing about repeal is that people might be tempted to hop into some of the big issues.


+1

That's what I have been trying to say.I think we are all too focused on MHL. You would gain much more benefit by actually promoting cycling and educating others then campainging long and hard to change MHL and then expecting that all these problems will magically disappear.


No, the goverment is not dealing with the big issues, cause of the MHL.

Without the mhl, the goverment has to deal with them..
But now we are safe, we got... helmet...

And, promoting cycling with a helmet is not easy.
however promoting cycling without a helmet ...
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 damhooligan » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:50 pm

Philipthelam wrote:
damhooligan wrote:It's not realistic to assume, that everybody that rides wil have an accident that involves hitting your head.
its realistic to assume, that you can ride a bike without hitting your head, but the law dissagrees.
And as people have trust in the law, they trust that when you ride, you will hit your head.
so a helmet is needed....
Either that, or choose the safer option, and drive.

I see your point there. However I (and this is only me) see helmets as more of a precautionary thing, like it won't be likely that I will hit my head but if I do I "might" be better off. I see them like seat belts in cars, how you have to wear shin pads in a football game, pads/gloves/helmets/box in cricket, motocycle helmets ..... and even cycling gloves (where everyone recommends to wear gloves in case of a fall)

At the moment I don't care whether we have MHL or not. Either way I'll still wear a helmet. They are comfy on my head and I feel a little "naked" If I ride without one :)

For everyone that has posted in this thread the big question is- After 200 long pages of this "Mandatory helmet laws and stuff" discussion, What have you done to get this law changed?


sorry human909, I can't see the last two images you posted, it comes up with a "red X image" box...



Helmets are a precautionary thing.
nothing more nothing less.

You want to wear one, no worries, I respect that.
I don't, but nobody cares, I stil have to anyway.
cause others know better then me...

I would love to see it repealed, but its not as easy as going to coles and buying some butter...
I do what I can to get this law terminated, but I am only one person...
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 damhooligan » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:00 pm

winstonw wrote:
Philipthelam wrote:If not, then there will be no benefit at all and she will turn up to work all sweaty and exhausted.


Not to mention sunburnt, unless she wears a cap in summer.
How about the cold head complaint in winter? better wear a beanie
How about the wet hair in wet weather? better wear a rain jacket hood.
How about windy days?
How about vehicle exhaust fume smell in the hair?

hmmmm... just seems like that hair is going get messed up and smelly, period.
Honestly, only someone who has never ridden 5+km in Brisbane can delude themselves into believing their hair is going to look and smell the same at work as it did in front of the bathroom mirror at home.


explain this one then.
Gender of cycling of australia; mostly men (have to look up excact number, but it is high...)
percentage of a non helmet wearing country, mostyly female. (aroound 60-40)
As it is the case of the netherlands.

Now this number has nothing to do with cycling infrastructure, or any other reason you can think of, as it is exactly the same for both genders.
the reason why more woman cycle, is cause of the absense of the helmet.
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 DavidS » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:25 pm

damhooligan wrote:No, the government is not dealing with the big issues, cause of the MHL.

Without the mhl, the goverment has to deal with them..
But now we are safe, we got... helmet...

And, promoting cycling with a helmet is not easy.
however promoting cycling without a helmet ...


So true. We whinge about road conditions but the government can reply that they have mandated helmets so we are safe. No need for the government to take any more action, they have legislated for our safety.

But what have they really done?

What they have done is to blame the victim. Everyone here, pro or anti MHL, has complained about the behaviour of some of the vehicles we share the road with, mainly cars. The main danger is the behaviour of car drivers. The perpetrator is getting off scot free.

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 Philipthelam » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:39 pm

damhooligan wrote:
winstonw wrote:
Philipthelam wrote:If not, then there will be no benefit at all and she will turn up to work all sweaty and exhausted.


Not to mention sunburnt, unless she wears a cap in summer.
How about the cold head complaint in winter? better wear a beanie
How about the wet hair in wet weather? better wear a rain jacket hood.
How about windy days?
How about vehicle exhaust fume smell in the hair?

hmmmm... just seems like that hair is going get messed up and smelly, period.
Honestly, only someone who has never ridden 5+km in Brisbane can delude themselves into believing their hair is going to look and smell the same at work as it did in front of the bathroom mirror at home.


explain this one then.
Gender of cycling of australia; mostly men (have to look up excact number, but it is high...)
percentage of a non helmet wearing country, mostyly female. (aroound 60-40)
As it is the case of the netherlands.

Now this number has nothing to do with cycling infrastructure, or any other reason you can think of, as it is exactly the same for both genders.
the reason why more woman cycle, is cause of the absense of the helmet.

The answer is simple really, I don't see why you don't see it.
There is a big difference with our culture and Netherland's culture. Over there cycling is seen as someting different. This difference in culture isn't due to MHL. And yes, cycling infrastructure does have to do with it. It makes more people cycle. It makes it easier to get to places by bike so that "everyone" cycles there. This percentage of females riding has nothing to do with the fact that helmets mess up their hair. It's the fact that the culture is different
With your reasoning you could say that if MHL was introduced in the netherlands then ONLY the female cyclists will stop riding because they are scared of helmet hair. I see that as highly unlikely.
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby Biffidus » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:01 pm

Philipthelam wrote:The answer is simple really, I don't see why you don't see it.
There is a big difference with our culture and Netherland's culture. Over there cycling is seen as someting different. This difference in culture isn't due to MHL. And yes, cycling infrastructure does have to do with it. It makes more people cycle. It makes it easier to get to places by bike so that "everyone" cycles there. This percentage of females riding has nothing to do with the fact that helmets mess up their hair. It's the fact that the culture is different
With your reasoning you could say that if MHL was introduced in the netherlands then ONLY the female cyclists will stop riding because they are scared of helmet hair. I see that as highly unlikely.

The MHL is one of many problems with cycling in Australia. Removing it won't fix cycling, but it will help.
User avatar
Biffidus
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: RADelaide

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

Postby damhooligan » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:16 pm

Philipthelam wrote:The answer is simple really, I don't see why you don't see it.
There is a big difference with our culture and Netherland's culture. Over there cycling is seen as someting different. This difference in culture isn't due to MHL. And yes, cycling infrastructure does have to do with it. It makes more people cycle. It makes it easier to get to places by bike so that "everyone" cycles there. This percentage of females riding has nothing to do with the fact that helmets mess up their hair. It's the fact that the culture is different
With your reasoning you could say that if MHL was introduced in the netherlands then ONLY the female cyclists will stop riding because they are scared of helmet hair. I see that as highly unlikely.


Ok.
The dutch culture is different then here.
BUT its the same for both genders... regardles of wich culture they are in...
Infrastructures are not gender specific....

Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...

And the dutch culture is very much influenced by the absence of helmets.
It plays a big part in promotion of cycling.
A big part as to who rides.
Not just gender. But also age.
The absense of helmet makes cycling accessible for everybody.
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 Comedian » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:08 am

damhooligan wrote:
Philipthelam wrote:The answer is simple really, I don't see why you don't see it.
There is a big difference with our culture and Netherland's culture. Over there cycling is seen as someting different. This difference in culture isn't due to MHL. And yes, cycling infrastructure does have to do with it. It makes more people cycle. It makes it easier to get to places by bike so that "everyone" cycles there. This percentage of females riding has nothing to do with the fact that helmets mess up their hair. It's the fact that the culture is different
With your reasoning you could say that if MHL was introduced in the netherlands then ONLY the female cyclists will stop riding because they are scared of helmet hair. I see that as highly unlikely.


Ok.
The dutch culture is different then here.
BUT its the same for both genders... regardles of wich culture they are in...
Infrastructures are not gender specific....

Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...

And the dutch culture is very much influenced by the absence of helmets.
It plays a big part in promotion of cycling.
A big part as to who rides.
Not just gender. But also age.
The absense of helmet makes cycling accessible for everybody.

The other thing I find a little disturbing here is we have people that have lived in both types of cycling countries. So then we go and say that it's different here and these people don't know what they are talking about.

Well, DH I'm with you. I believe what you are saying and respect it. Funnily enough.. it's fairly consistent with what other Dutch people say. Or even people that spend some time there with their eyes open.

We are different in Australia - yeah right... we have kangaroos... :mrgreen:
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 Xplora » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:59 am

Phil, you've just described a classic Chicken VS Egg conundrum - dutch culture is different, but it is different because they WANT to be different to us. They actively moved away from the car model several decades ago. This kind of progressive thinking is precisely why Scandinavian countries rank highest in satisfaction ratings. It's probably smug self congratulatory masturbation, but from the way I see it, the chase after the car dream is the smug masturbation... and here is the irony. My family is two generations car/motorbike racer and professional car mechanic. I'm legally a 3rd year car mechanic apprentice. My extended family has mechanics in my generation. I was raised around cars, our wellbeing relied on cars. :idea: It is truly "fool's gold" because outside a limited number of situations (countryside commuting, commuting 50kms+ a day, moving large tools by ute/truck) the car isn't the ideal solution because the infrastructure can't keep up with car uptake in a first world economy. The dutch realised this. Australia and the USA have actively resisted the abandonment of the car.

Doesn't this strike you as odd? You can say "it's different here". I would agree if you lived in the Outback and had an Audax ride to the next town. I would agree if you were a builder and needed to move tools every day (I would question how many people actually need 10 ton mobile toolsheds like my father in law, but I digress....)

The MHL is part of an active resistance to the bike as a freedom creating, democratic, people focussed transport solution. I work with people who are a 20 minute bike commute from the office (ALL PATHS!!!!) and will catch 60 minutes of PT. That's the most DUMB decision I can imagine!?!?! Why are these people choosing this? It's a lonely PT ride 95% of the time. It's a slow PT ride 100% of the time. It's a restrictive car ride 90% of the time. Bike can average the same speed as a car even on a freakin' recovery ride (I did 60 minutes last Friday, specifically trying to avoid muscle strain, my best is 48 minutes).

Let's not beat around the bush Phil... the MHL is part of a broad discrimination against the bike. Consider how many police resources are required for policing bikes without a helmet law. Now consider how many police resources are needed for cars. The car is clearly a liability to the public, why the need to increase red tape for bikes? There is definitely no epidemic of head injuries for cyclists. There was none in the 80s, or any other method. See it for what it is.... also consider how much money is invested by our governments to keep Toyota, GMH and Ford building cars in Australia :idea: How much money has the government spent subsidising the bike industry? :idea:

Even the most even handed person can see a bias. I'm OK with bias... but at least be smart about it, car people. People will simply not undertake an activity that has a high chance of head injury. A helmet isn't going to mitigate an underlying risk.
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 winstonw » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:40 pm

Xplora wrote:Phil, you've just described a classic Chicken VS Egg conundrum - dutch culture is different, but it is different because they WANT to be different to us. They actively moved away from the car model several decades ago.


And each year, how many Australians migrate to Holland versus vv?
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:43 pm

Just how is that relevant ???
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19612
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby winstonw » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:49 pm

damhooligan wrote:Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...


Are you serious?

Tell us all about Autodelen and Meerijden.nu then.
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:54 pm

Xplora wrote:Let's not beat around the bush Phil... the MHL is part of a broad discrimination against the bike.

This is pretty correct. The strongest campaigners for MHL in the late 80s (the RACS) were not concerned about promoting cycling. If cyclists were encumbered with a lump of plastic 'so be it' was their approach.

Xplora wrote:There is definitely no epidemic of head injuries for cyclists. There was none in the 80s, or any other method.

There was a higher cyclist death rate and head injury rate. Not an epedemic but higher than today (~30-40 deaths per year in Victoria, compared to 8 nowadays).

Yes, this did fall, but the real reasons for that are very much unclear. Was it MHL, or the significant drop in bicycle use, especially by the most collision-prone group, teenagers? Or was it due to the almost parallel police campaigns on drink-driving and speed via Booze-buses and the new speed/red-light cameras? Or due to the new TAC horror road safety ads? Note that there was a fall in all road death rates - drivers, passengers, pedestrians in the same time period.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19612
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby winstonw » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:04 pm

il padrone wrote:Just how is that relevant ???


You mean, as a serious cycling advocate, you have no idea of Australia vs Holland for
- net population growth rate?
- population density?
- quality of life?
And my question was all about quality of life. Now, what motivated your relevance question?
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby human909 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:45 pm

winstonw wrote:
il padrone wrote:Just how is that relevant ???


You mean, as a serious cycling advocate, you have no idea of Australia vs Holland for
- net population growth rate?
- population density?
- quality of life?
And my question was all about quality of life. Now, what motivated your relevance question?


Because the relevance of your question remains unclear. It is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Likewise is reference to general 'quality of life' but if you want to go down that path then you'll unlikely to find the support you want. The Netherlands is a fantastic country to live, I personally would prefer to live in Amsterdam to Brisbane.
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby damhooligan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm

winstonw wrote:
damhooligan wrote:Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...


Are you serious?

Tell us all about Autodelen and Meerijden.nu then.



What are you trying to say??

So the dutch have an organised car-sharing system..
it stil does not change the fact that most cyclist are female...

Melb also has something like this called flexicar....
does this change anything ??

Nope.

dutch, no helmnets, many females ride bikes.
autralia , mhl, not many females ride bikes...

Mayby if I repeat it a few times, it wil sink in... :wink:


Image
Last edited by damhooligan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

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