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 human909 » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:48 pm

Philipthelam wrote:It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.

Maybe it didn't discourage you. But is has certainly discouraged many people. To suggest that it doesn't at all is clearly absurd, it is a restriction on the ease the access and comfort or cycling. We can certainly debate the EXTENT of the discouragement, but to try to argue that it doesn't discourage cycling is unreasonable.

simonn wrote:...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)

You have this all topsy turvy. Why would medical professional have any idea about the risks!? Certainly in their daily work they would encounter the consequences of cycling accidents so they may know all about those. But they are not in any position to gauge the LIKELIHOOD which is just as important in assessing risk as the consequences. Road safety professionals? What and who are they? What knowledge do they have of cycling? Where are they getting the data of cycling participation rates?

simonn wrote:self selected members of the public who post to a cycling forum (another group)

Regular participants in activities generally do have a good ability to assess general risk. In fact overall we aren't too bad at assessing risk. Of course there are numerous studies showing that sometimes we under or over estimate risks, but on the the whole we do a pretty good job. If we didn't then natural selection would have taken its course long ago.

Furthermore what us as INDIVIDUALS care about is not risk facing the 'average' cyclist (whatever that may be) but the risk that we personally face. No 'medical expert' or 'road safety expert' can assess MY individual risk as well as I can. I also participate in skiing, rock climbing and off road mountain biking neither of which require helmet use. Yet I happily wear a helmet in those activities when I feel the need. And as far as the riskiness, mountain biking is by far the most likely where I will end up badly injured. On road riding probably the most likely where I'll end up dead.
human909
 
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

by BNA » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:08 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby damhooligan » Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:08 pm

Philipthelam wrote:All of you people just assume that you know how other people think .


you do realise that does include YOU !
You also assume YOU know how other people think...
you do this by saying MHL does not discourage cycling...

Philipthelam wrote: It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.


sorry to dissapoint you, but I wil say it again..
MHL discourages cycling !

Why is it so hard to respect other people decision not to start riding because of the mhl ??
ok fair enough, it did not deter you, good man.
But it does have a different effect on others, is this really so hard to understand that other people have a different opinion then your own?
Is it really so hard to understand that others dont want to wear a helmet :?:
is it really so hard to understand that can be a deciding factor ??
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 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:42 am

The population of these forums is obviously a biased set when assessing whether MHLs discourages cycling. To be on these forums not only categorises you as a cyclist, but a cycling enthusiast.

I personally have certainly not felt overly discouraged from riding due to MHLs. Except on some occasions where no helmet has been available, ie city bike shares. I do remember forgetting my helmet on one occasion and I ended up riding illegally without it, so the law it didn't discourage me. :wink:

MHLs no doubt significantly discourage the use of these facilities in Melbourne. Bike share facilities world wide have been extremely successful and uptake is usually by many parts of the population who don't normally cycle. Unfortunately due to MHLs the bike share systems in Australia have been a massive flop.
human909
 
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Philipthelam » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:24 am

damhooligan wrote:you do realise that does include YOU !
You also assume YOU know how other people think...
you do this by saying MHL does not discourage cycling...


Your wrong.
If you read my post carefully the whole thing is written in first person. I'm talking about my own experience. I said it didn't discourage myself from cycling.
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby simonn » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:52 am

human909 wrote:
Philipthelam wrote:It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.

Maybe it didn't discourage you. But is has certainly discouraged many people. To suggest that it doesn't at all is clearly absurd, it is a restriction on the ease the access and comfort or cycling. We can certainly debate the EXTENT of the discouragement, but to try to argue that it doesn't discourage cycling is unreasonable.

simonn wrote:...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)

You have this all topsy turvy. Why would medical professional have any idea about the risks!? Certainly in their daily work they would encounter the consequences of cycling accidents so they may know all about those. But they are not in any position to gauge the LIKELIHOOD which is just as important in assessing risk as the consequences. Road safety professionals? What and who are they? What knowledge do they have of cycling? Where are they getting the data of cycling participation rates?

simonn wrote:self selected members of the public who post to a cycling forum (another group)

Regular participants in activities generally do have a good ability to assess general risk. In fact overall we aren't too bad at assessing risk. Of course there are numerous studies showing that sometimes we under or over estimate risks, but on the the whole we do a pretty good job. If we didn't then natural selection would have taken its course long ago.

Furthermore what us as INDIVIDUALS care about is not risk facing the 'average' cyclist (whatever that may be) but the risk that we personally face. No 'medical expert' or 'road safety expert' can assess MY individual risk as well as I can. I also participate in skiing, rock climbing and off road mountain biking neither of which require helmet use. Yet I happily wear a helmet in those activities when I feel the need. And as far as the riskiness, mountain biking is by far the most likely where I will end up badly injured. On road riding probably the most likely where I'll end up dead.


What measurements do you use to assess risk?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby damhooligan » Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:45 pm

Philipthelam wrote:
damhooligan wrote:you do realise that does include YOU !
You also assume YOU know how other people think...
you do this by saying MHL does not discourage cycling...


Your wrong.
If you read my post carefully the whole thing is written in first person. I'm talking about my own experience. I said it didn't discourage myself from cycling.


Me ? Wrong ? :shock:
NEVER... :mrgreen:

But you said you are sick of hearing ; MHL discourages cycling.
Why??
It is true..
Mayby not for you, but it is for others..
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 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:07 pm

Philipthelam wrote:
damhooligan wrote:you do realise that does include YOU !
You also assume YOU know how other people think...
you do this by saying MHL does not discourage cycling...


Your wrong.
If you read my post carefully the whole thing is written in first
person. I'm talking about my own experience. I said it didn't discourage
myself from cycling.

But sadly, you (like ross) have failed to understand that your personal
case study is an attempt to extrapolate an opinion held by other people.
You weren't discouraged... great. What about the other 20 million that
wouldn't even dream of riding? I spoke to a lady yesterday who lived in
Clifton Hills in Melbourne. Surely a better person to ride to work you
will not find. Short ride... but it's too dangerous. So she doesn't know
how to ride a bike?

Or is the issue that car drivers have made a neutral zone, a road, so
terrifying that she couldn't conceive of doing something both legal and
safe? The parallel is this - helmet laws give the impression that
cycling is so terrifying that you can't go riding without one, an
otherwise legal and safe activity. We need to move away from this
assumption that someone riding at 20kmh is somehow doing something
unsafe. They are not. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

You're on a bike forum. Clearly the laws don't discourage YOU. :lol:

Simonn, did you post the strawman for your own post? Medical
professionals only see the injuries. Big deal. Where is the campaign to
ban ladder use? Backyard pools? Swimming at the beach? Banning weekend
sport? Sharp knives? These things create a LOT more emergency department
visits than bikes. These professionals are not neutral and they don't
apply these principles to all activities equally. Road safety
professionals is a good one. ACA/TT trots out some nutter from a driver
training school as a road safety expert. You have to be very careful who
you want to hand over your decisionmaking to... because control of
others is a dangerous thing, more dangerous than letting the great
unwashed decide for themselves. History is filled with various leaders
who crushed the populace for their own good.

Real question, simon. If I go off and do a uni degree in ergonomics and
crash testing, do I suddenly get to veto any opinion you have about
health and safety? Do I get the right to inflict legal restrictions on
you for your own good, even if it is totally contrary to the principles
of a free society? Are you prepared to surrender to my authority
because of a piece of paper from a university?
:shock:
Xplora
 
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby Philipthelam » Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:10 pm

Xplora wrote:
Philipthelam wrote:
damhooligan wrote:you do realise that does include YOU !
You also assume YOU know how other people think...
you do this by saying MHL does not discourage cycling...


Your wrong.
If you read my post carefully the whole thing is written in first
person. I'm talking about my own experience. I said it didn't discourage
myself from cycling.

But sadly, you (like ross) have failed to understand that your personal
case study is an attempt to extrapolate an opinion held by other people.
You weren't discouraged... great. What about the other 20 million that
wouldn't even dream of riding? I spoke to a lady yesterday who lived in
Clifton Hills in Melbourne. Surely a better person to ride to work you
will not find. Short ride... but it's too dangerous. So she doesn't know
how to ride a bike?

Or is the issue that car drivers have made a neutral zone, a road, so
terrifying that she couldn't conceive of doing something both legal and
safe? The parallel is this - helmet laws give the impression that
cycling is so terrifying that you can't go riding without one, an
otherwise legal and safe activity. We need to move away from this
assumption that someone riding at 20kmh is somehow doing something
unsafe. They are not. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

You're on a bike forum. Clearly the laws don't discourage YOU. :lol:

Simonn, did you post the strawman for your own post? Medical
professionals only see the injuries. Big deal. Where is the campaign to
ban ladder use? Backyard pools? Swimming at the beach? Banning weekend
sport? Sharp knives? These things create a LOT more emergency department
visits than bikes. These professionals are not neutral and they don't
apply these principles to all activities equally. Road safety
professionals is a good one. ACA/TT trots out some nutter from a driver
training school as a road safety expert. You have to be very careful who
you want to hand over your decisionmaking to... because control of
others is a dangerous thing, more dangerous than letting the great
unwashed decide for themselves. History is filled with various leaders
who crushed the populace for their own good.

Real question, simon. If I go off and do a uni degree in ergonomics and
crash testing, do I suddenly get to veto any opinion you have about
health and safety? Do I get the right to inflict legal restrictions on
you for your own good, even if it is totally contrary to the principles
of a free society? Are you prepared to surrender to my authority
because of a piece of paper from a university?
:shock:


Wow long post :)
Your right in that many people don't cycle due to them thinking that it is too dangerous. In fact a study done by the Cycling Promotion fund show that out of 1000 people surveyed 46.4 percent don't cycle because of "unsafe road conditions". The few reasons following (starting from higher percentage) are Speed/volume of traffic, Don’t feel safe riding and Lack of bicycle lanes/trails. The "Don't like wearing a helmet" reason is all the way down at number 13, which BTW is next to the "No place to change/shower" reason. (note this study was about using bikes as transport).

Now the reason I posted that is that I think many people are over exaggerating the effect MHL on the perceived risks/dangers involved in cycling. Yes MHL may give the impression to some that cycling is dangerous, but I believe that it plays a very, very small part in this. The reason that people believe that cycling is dangerous is not (as much) because of MHL but because cycling is actually "dangerous". I mean if you look at all youtube channels of cyclist who have cyclecams at least 90% of their videos are titled "Random number plate number- SMIDSY/Close overtake/ tailgating/some other thing. And if you look at the reason why so many people are now buying cycle cams it is because they will have video evidence if something bad happens to them. To emphasise my point, the first time I ever rode my bike on the road was during a Safe Commuting Course run by Bike north during NSW Bike Week this year. During the first ten minutes of actually riding on the road a big 4WD cut in front of us. Luckily no one was hurt and nothing bad happened. The week after this commuting course I began riding on quiet streets to gain my confidence. When I was going down a slight downhill, (and going the same speed as the surrounding cars) a car just felt the need to overtake me. The car overtook me and didn't give me much room. What's more is there was a roundabout 15m ahead of me, which it had to wait at anyway . The same thing happened a few days later but when I was approaching speed bumps. I was riding in the primary position BTW. Also if you look on the commuting thread you get posts like "Sad, but as a cyclist i too can say its been a good day when only 1 ped and 1 car almost collects me."(page 366)

The main reason why people think cycling is dangerous is because of these things that happen. Until motorists start treating cyclists better (and vice versa) cycling will always be seen as a dangerous thing to do, this will be whether we have MHL or not. The danger impression comes more from the actual things that happen rather than MHL. Making cyclist seem more "safe" by allowing people to ride without helmets won't actually change how "dangerous" it actually is and it is because of these dangerous things that give the dangerous impression of cycling. I think that campaigning for better infrastructure and educating drivers so that these close passes, tailgating etc. do not happen will be a MUCH better option than abolishing MHL in making cycling seem safer and therefore encourage more people to start cycling.
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby DavidS » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:05 am

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? I do ride every day to work on roads and I don't think cycling is particularly dangerous. But I will tell you one thing, education, more facilities and the like, yes they can make it safer and appear safer, but what will really make cycling safer is if there are more cyclists on the road, and that is being held back by MHLs.

I got cut off today, a car pulled out in front of me and then drove down the bike lane. Yes, this sort of behaviour pisses me off, but maybe if bicycles were more normal the car driver would look before assuming that since she was pulling into the bike lane she could assume it was empty. As for the YouTube clips, of course they accentuate the problematic situations, wouldn't get any views otherwise.

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.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Comedian » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:14 am

Philipthelam wrote: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.

But you see that's the point isn't it? Anyone who cycles in Australia now is not deterred by MHL. If they were... they wouldn't be cycling.

That's why discussing this issue on this forum is largely pointless. Anyone who cycles in Australia is ok with the law. There are a few who do cycle that would like the choice. And then there are a great number of society that don't cycle now that would if there was a cultural shift towards cycling (of which repealing MHL is just one of the first steps).

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.
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: 4412
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby Biffidus » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:01 pm

HelmutHerr wrote:Au contraire!

I'd need to wear something under the helmet as well, to prevent getting burned through the holes... and carry another hat for when I'm not on the bike!

Helmets are a pain in the arse and I'd love it if they weren't necessary, both legally and in terms of driver awareness.
User avatar
Biffidus
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: RADelaide

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

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: 5039
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: 4412
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: 1269
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: 1349
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

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: westab



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

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

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit