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 damhooligan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:51 pm

Comedian wrote:
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:



Thanks comedian.
I appreciate it. 8)

Mayby a interesting read after you use google translate is
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/node/2069

Its from the cycling union, a massifly big organisation, that fights for cyclists.
They are strong, and get things done !!.

I love this word , schijnveiligheid...
as it sums up the whole mhl in one word...
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

by BNA » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:10 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby human909 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:10 pm

damhooligan wrote: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:

I don't particularly want to disagree along partisan lines, but.....

I think the biggest influence on women cycling is feeling safe on the roads (this is STRONGLY supported by research) and the ability to perform daily tasks. Women are a more risk adverse bunch and are more pragmatic and practical when it comes to activities. By my observations in Melbourne's inner north and amongst my peers it seems that women riders are just as common as male riders. However this is of course the exception and not the rule in Australia. While cycling remains a fringe activity it will remain a male dominated one.

MHLs are just one of the many barriers to encouraging cycling. It just happens to be the one that had the biggest impact on youth cycling and is one of the lowest cost to change.
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby winstonw » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:13 pm

damhooligan wrote:
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:


Repeat it all you like. It doesn't change car ownership numbers, registration costs, parking fees and accessibility, off street parking availability, geographical terrain, population density. If you've lived there, cough up the numbers.
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 9:25 pm

winstonw wrote:If you've lived there, cough up the numbers.

I believe it was me who said I have lived there.

winstonw wrote:Repeat it all you like. It doesn't change car ownership numbers, registration costs, parking fees and accessibility, off street parking availability, geographical terrain, population density.

I'm still unsure of your point. Nobody is suggesting that the only difference between Australia and the Netherlands is MHLs. The Netherlands is more pleasant for cycling for numerous reasons. Almost all of which Australia could follow to improve cycling.

However if you can't see than having to wear a foam hat to get to and from your workplace or other destinations is an impediment to many then you clearly can't think outside your own experiences.
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby damhooligan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:32 pm

winstonw wrote:
damhooligan wrote:
dutch, no helmets, many females ride bikes.
autralia , mhl, not many females ride bikes...

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


Repeat it all you like. It doesn't change car ownership numbers, registration costs, parking fees and accessibility, off street parking availability, geographical terrain, population density. If you've lived there, cough up the numbers.


sometimes repeating things is needed..
car ownership numbers, registration costs, parking fees and accessibility, off street parking availability, geographical terrain, population density, these are all things that affect both genders...

they are different in each country, sure, but they do not explain a difference in gender participation.
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 il padrone » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:39 pm

human909 wrote:MHLs are just one of the many barriers to encouraging cycling. It just happens to be the one that had the biggest impact on youth cycling

This.

Teenagers and many younger kids dropped cycling in large numbers. Parents were faced with kids requiring transport for any distance longer than a convenient walk. Driving kids about became the norm "It's safer than putting a helmet on to ride a dangerous bike". Kids have now completely lost the cycling culture (as young kids and teens - they may often pick it up as twenty-somethings). But the long term trend was clear for teenagers - a sustained fall in cycling for transport.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby damhooligan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:48 pm

human909 wrote:
damhooligan wrote: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:

I don't particularly want to disagree along partisan lines, but.....

I think the biggest influence on women cycling is feeling safe on the roads (this is STRONGLY supported by research) and the ability to perform daily tasks. Women are a more risk adverse bunch and are more pragmatic and practical when it comes to activities. By my observations in Melbourne's inner north and amongst my peers it seems that women riders are just as common as male riders. However this is of course the exception and not the rule in Australia. While cycling remains a fringe activity it will remain a male dominated one.

MHLs are just one of the many barriers to encouraging cycling. It just happens to be the one that had the biggest impact on youth cycling and is one of the lowest cost to change.



you are right , safety is a big factor.
But i believe that safety is strongly linked to MHL.
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/node/2069 , is a good read, after google translate.

woman are indeed practical, a helmet is not practical (imho...)
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 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:52 pm

damhooligan wrote:you are right , safety is a big factor.
But i believe that safety is strongly linked to MHL.
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/node/2069 , is a good read, after google translate.

woman are indeed practical, a helmet is not practical (imho...)

I agree too. :D

To quote that translated link for others:
Cyclists in the emergency department after a {single vehicle} accident, found in 13% of cases a helmet worn, that is at least ten times higher than the helmet use among cyclists.

Anyone who doesn't think that there is risk compensation and rational individual choice at work when it comes to wearing a helmet is clearly a little naive.
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:29 am

il padrone wrote:
human909 wrote:MHLs are just one of the many barriers to encouraging cycling. It just happens to be the one that had the biggest impact on youth cycling

This.

Teenagers and many younger kids dropped cycling in large numbers. Parents were faced with kids requiring transport for any distance longer than a convenient walk. Driving kids about became the norm "It's safer than putting a helmet on to ride a dangerous bike". Kids have now completely lost the cycling culture (as young kids and teens - they may often pick it up as twenty-somethings). But the long term trend was clear for teenagers - a sustained fall in cycling for transport.


However, less children ride to school the UK than in the good old days too. UK does not have MHLs.

Just a quick google:
Australia: "Only one in ten children ride to school, even though 80% of parents think it would improve their kids’ health" (seems a bit high to me, but hey...)
http://btawa.org.au/campaigns/riding-bi ... to-school/

UK: "in the UK [cycling] has declined steadily since the 1970s. Now it's the main form of transport for a pathetic 2% of pupils."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... -to-school
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:37 am

winstonw wrote:
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?

This isn't worth discussing - who said we should mass emigrate to another country because of one law? :lol: I'm familiar with the term strawman, but prefer to not bring it up.... but I think this ualifies as a strawman. If you want to define immigration patterns, I think you'll find that proximity to war zones, refugee acceptance, welfare programs and permissive culture will rank much higher for immigration preference than MHL. :roll:

Pad, would you have said that head injuries was an epidemic? Was the lack of helmet such a serious risk to the rider that it warranted a law? Was it expected that a rider would die of a head specific injury once a week? (just looking for more indepth commentary on the vibe around head injuries). I have a feeling that there was no God Help Us, THE HEAD INJURIES vibe in the public. I'm guessing that there were 2-3 deaths within a week or two, got some press coverage and bam. Sydney buses underwent the exact same situation with 2 kids dragged and dead from the rear door closing on their foot within a week. Somehow no one had died from this injury for a VERY LONG TIME, yet two random moments required a retro fit across all buses to prevent the feet getting caught. Cameras etc as well... And I am guessing that no one who recalls these incidents has noticed that the hysteria surrounding the tragedy hasn't actually resulted in positive outcomes. How many news reports of kids getting their feet caught, and then released by the new door flaps? Interesting...

When it comes to issues of safety, risk must be weighed against benefit. Cars are more dangerous by maybe 500 times more than a bike, yet the car wasn't banned. People under 25 were not banned from driving. People over 75 were not banned from driving. Vehicles heavier than 200 kiloes were not banned. Risk was weighed against benefit. The decimation of cycling numbers simply showed that a lot of people suddenly weren't interested in riding anymore after the law change. The benefits of an active cycling population were completely ignored and things ARE getting worse as we become more sedentary. The world is different to 1990. PCs and the net, pay TV... litigious culture... the College of Surgeons would get their touted 30 minutes of exercise 3 times a week if people just rode a bike to a friend's place or down to the local restaurant instead of driving. This is precisely why I said discrimination - most commutes are well within the realms of bike distance, there is really very little motivation right now to take it up when you assume some idiot is going to cut you up... that idiot would not do that if he also rode a couple times a week. And a rights mentality towards a drivers licence, rather than seeing it as a licence to kill, doesn't help matters. There IS a drive towards cars, pardon the pun. And almost no push towards bikes... I'll be here all week, try the veal... 8)
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7356
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:02 pm

Xplora wrote:just looking for more indepth commentary on the vibe around head injuries). I have a feeling that there was no God Help Us, THE HEAD INJURIES vibe in the public. I'm guessing that there were 2-3 deaths within a week or two, got some press coverage and bam.

As I said, there was no real epidemic, however....

God Help Us, THE HEAD INJURIES


...was exactly the sort of thing the doctors of the RACS were bleating about frequently via their media mouthpieces. They kept dragging up cases of the kid or adult who just started cycling, fell on a bike path and were now on life support or a brain-damaged vegetable :roll: It was sad, a case of power and influence at work, and generally pretty unjustified. What was really needed was a greater degree of taming of motor vehicle drivers..... the real danger on our roads.

Hint: the very same drivers who work as surgeons :? :evil:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:02 pm

What happened in 1991??

Image
From Charting Transport
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.


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

Postby Philipthelam » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:13 pm

il padrone wrote:What happened in 1991??

Image
From Charting Transport

MHL!
It's interesting to see how the MHL has affected different states. In most states the numbers went down after 1991 but it's interesting that sydney and canberra both went up. Also the one most affected by MHL (adelaide) seems to still be dropping now and was dropping before MHL was introduced. I suppose it's nice to see that (other than in adelaide) cycling journeys to work is increasing in all states. I also thought cycling was a lot more popular then. Do you think there was a bigger drop in recreational cyclists or commuters/utility cyclists?
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby simonn » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:47 pm

il padrone wrote:What happened in 1991??

Image
From Charting Transport


Relaxation of tariffs on imported cars? There was much bigger rise in car journeys than could have been accounted for by just cyclists moving to cars.

Image

Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Xplora » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:58 pm

Very interesting to look at that chart - seems there is a baseline for cycling, and the MHL definitely is a factor when you are looking at reasons that growth of cycling stops.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7356
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby high_tea » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:32 pm

I can think of plenty of interesting things that happened in 1991. Put to it, I could probably make out some kind of argument that they were somehow causally connected to the decline in cycling (among other things). There are plenty of amusing examples of correlation (global warming and piracy, for example), often brought up to make the point that correlation, on its own, means very little.

Put another way, if I've made my mind up about something and go looking for data to support my view, I'll probably find it. Trouble is, it's not good for much except making me feel validated and throwing into half-arsed debates on the subject if I'm bored :twisted:

I gather there was some kind of MHL relaxation in the Northern Territory. Is there any data about participation rates pre and post that, I wonder? That might be interesting. I honestly don't know what it'd show.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:02 pm

IIRC, posted links show numbers are climbing better than I do.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 26871
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:33 pm

high_tea wrote:I gather there was some kind of MHL relaxation in the Northern Territory. Is there any data about participation rates pre and post that, I wonder? That might be interesting. I honestly don't know what it'd show.

A subjective observation while I was in Alice Springs - there were really quite a lot of people riding bikes about the town..... adults, using bikes for routine transport. Much more than you'd expect to see in a similar-sized town in Victoria (even on a warm day).

National census data on bicycle use and helmet introduction
Image

NT is a bit of a stand-out case, the one that proves the sky will not fall in if we ditch the MHL. NT helmet law was repealed in 1994.

Some comparative data on the NT experience in this study

Cycling to work is most popular in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory where bicycles where used in 4.2% and 2.6% (respectively) of all trips to work.
Cycling to work is less popular in other areas of Australia, where the proportion of trips to work by bicycle is below 2% and is lowest in New South Wales and Tasmania at 0.9% of all trips.....

.....Cycling for exercise, recreation or sport is most popular in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory where about 15% of people used bicycles for these purposes.
Cycling for exercise, recreation or sport is less popular in South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales where about 8% of people used bicycles for these purposes


Image

Proportionally fewer men and more women cycle to work and for recreation in the NT compared to all the other states.

There is a statistically higher road death rate for the NT.

The highest rate of cyclist fatalities per person was in the Northern Territory at 0.47 fatalities per 100,000 people. However, the Northern Territory averages only 1 cyclist fatality per year and a high proportion of trips are undertaken on bicycle in the Northern Territory.


More info here as well.
For most road users, the Northern Territory has the worst injury rate in Australia. The sole exception is cyclists, for whom the serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory for all cycling. (Berry and Harrison, 2008)
Last edited by il padrone on Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:04 pm

simonn wrote:Relaxation of tariffs on imported cars? There was much bigger rise in car journeys than could have been accounted for by just cyclists moving to cars.

Tariffs on imported motor vehicles continued to fall steadily for the next 10+ years. Cycling use did not, it fell to a lower level then stayed low and later rose slowly.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby high_tea » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:18 pm

il padrone wrote:
high_tea wrote:I gather there was some kind of MHL relaxation in the Northern Territory. Is there any data about participation rates pre and post that, I wonder? That might be interesting. I honestly don't know what it'd show.

A subjective observation while I was in Alice Springs - there were really quite a lot of people riding bikes about the town..... adults, using bikes for routine transport. Much more than you'd expect to see in a similar-sized town in Victoria (even on a warm day).

National census data on bicycle use and helmet introduction
Image

NT is a bit of a stand-out case, the one that proves the sky will not fall in if we ditch the MHL. NT helmet law was repealed in 1994.

Some comparative data on the NT experience in this study

Cycling to work is most popular in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory where bicycles where used in 4.2% and 2.6% (respectively) of all trips to work.
Cycling to work is less popular in other areas of Australia, where the proportion of trips to work by bicycle is below 2% and is lowest in New South Wales and Tasmania at 0.9% of all trips.....

.....Cycling for exercise, recreation or sport is most popular in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory where about 15% of people used bicycles for these purposes.
Cycling for exercise, recreation or sport is less popular in South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales where about 8% of people used bicycles for these purposes


Image

Proportionally fewer men and more women cycle to work and for recreation in the NT compared to all the other states.

There is a statistically higher road death rate for the NT.

The highest rate of cyclist fatalities per person was in the Northern Territory at 0.47 fatalities per 100,000 people. However, the Northern Territory averages only 1 cyclist fatality per year and a high proportion of trips are undertaken on bicycle in the Northern Territory.


More info here as well.
For most road users, the Northern Territory has the worst injury rate in Australia. The sole exception is cyclists, for whom the serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory for all cycling. (Berry and Harrison, 2008)


All of which is fascinating stuff, I'm sure, but I don't see any data from before and after the MHL relaxation (as I understand it, the MHL in the NT applies on-road to adults and always to children. Happy to be corrected, I haven't read the legislation or anything). It's clear to me that helmet laws aren't the only difference between, say, the NT and Queensland. It's not clear it's the biggest pertinent difference either. This is just data that is supportive if you squint at it right. No shortage of that, I'm afraid.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:49 pm

high_tea wrote:
il padrone wrote:More info here as well.
For most road users, the Northern Territory has the worst injury rate in Australia. The sole exception is cyclists, for whom the serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory for all cycling. (Berry and Harrison, 2008)


All of which is fascinating stuff, I'm sure, but I don't see any data from before and after the MHL relaxation

Maybe if you read that link ??

Effect on cycle use

After the law was first introduced, a street survey in Darwin found that 20% of people had given up cycling as a result of the law and 42% cycled less (Mead, 1993). Schools surveys showed a 17% reduction in primary schoolchildren cycling, an immediate reduction of 36% for secondary schoolchildren, reaching 39% by the end of the first year. (Van Zyl, 1993; RSCNT, 1993)

Counts of commuter cyclists showed a dramatic decline of about half following the law (RSCNT, 1993b):
Aug 1990 Apr 1991 Aug 1991 Apr 1992 August 1992 August 1993
252 222 350 142 122 131

Following the law's amendment, cycling recovered. By 2004, 4.2% of people cycled to work in NT (compared with a national average of 1.3%) and 15.3% of people cycled for recreation and sport (national average 9.5%) In particular, more women now cycle. (ABC, 2004)
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby high_tea » Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:23 am

il padrone wrote:
high_tea wrote:
All of which is fascinating stuff, I'm sure, but I don't see any data from before and after the MHL relaxation

Maybe if you read that link ??

Effect on cycle use

After the law was first introduced, a street survey in Darwin found that 20% of people had given up cycling as a result of the law and 42% cycled less (Mead, 1993). Schools surveys showed a 17% reduction in primary schoolchildren cycling, an immediate reduction of 36% for secondary schoolchildren, reaching 39% by the end of the first year. (Van Zyl, 1993; RSCNT, 1993)

Counts of commuter cyclists showed a dramatic decline of about half following the law (RSCNT, 1993b):
Aug 1990 Apr 1991 Aug 1991 Apr 1992 August 1992 August 1993
252 222 350 142 122 131

Following the law's amendment, cycling recovered. By 2004, 4.2% of people cycled to work in NT (compared with a national average of 1.3%) and 15.3% of people cycled for recreation and sport (national average 9.5%) In particular, more women now cycle. (ABC, 2004)


I overlooked that. Thanks. The commuter cyclist counts are interesting indeed. It's a shame that they don't continue past relaxation. The only post-relaxation data I see is that 4.2%. Pity it's a different metric, taken 10 years later.

Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative. It just comes naturally. I just don't see a lot of data that's convincing on either side of the debate. For what it's worth, I think that reflects poorly on the implementors; either they haven't bothered collecting it or it doesn't back their point of view. Either way, it's a poor show. What's done is done, though.

Now, the NT data certainly doesn't suggest that MHL relaxation results in some kind of public health disaster. I see nothing there that argues against repeating the experiment elsewhere. If this should happen, with any luck somebody will take the radical step of collecting some actual data that might shed some light on the effects of MHLs.

I think that this particular relaxation is unlikely to have any effect on utility cycling, though. Children always have to wear helmets. Adults too when on the road. I can't think of much utility cycling that doesn't involve riding on-road at some point. Schools would be the obvious exception but, whoops, children always have to wear helmets.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:26 pm

high_tea wrote:I just don't see a lot of data that's convincing on either side of the debate.

This isn't a controlled laboratory. You are never going to get absolutely conclusive data. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that MHLs discourage cycling. In fact it is unarguable, the degree that cycling is discouraged is what is open for discussion.

A simple discussion with cyclists in pretty much all localities overseas where cycling is an everyday activity shows the attitude towards helmets of the general public influenced by existing laws and propaganda.

high_tea wrote:Now, the NT data certainly doesn't suggest that MHL relaxation results in some kind of public health disaster. I see nothing there that argues against repeating the experiment elsewhere.

Apart from the fact that 'experiments' aren't needed. We have the rest of the world to look at!
human909
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:06 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:I just don't see a lot of data that's convincing on either side of the debate.

This isn't a controlled laboratory. You are never going to get absolutely conclusive data. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that MHLs discourage cycling. In fact it is unarguable, the degree that cycling is discouraged is what is open for discussion.

A simple discussion with cyclists in pretty much all localities overseas where cycling is an everyday activity shows the attitude towards helmets of the general public influenced by existing laws and propaganda.

high_tea wrote:Now, the NT data certainly doesn't suggest that MHL relaxation results in some kind of public health disaster. I see nothing there that argues against repeating the experiment elsewhere.

Apart from the fact that 'experiments' aren't needed. We have the rest of the world to look at!


Is there data before and after relaxation from, e.g., Israel or Spain? I'd sure like to see it because merely speculating about measurable effects like participation rates and injury rates doesn't sit well with me.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider]



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
“Bicycles BNA on Strava

> FREE BNA Stickers