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

[il padrone]

The big differences between the mandatory use of seat belts and mandatory use of helmets are:

1. Seat-belts don't need to be carried out to the car and fitted each day - helmets do,
2. Seat-belts don't interfere with your facial appearance (something that is a key factor in image, that many are bleating about in the CM thread) - helmets do,
3. Seat-belts don't tend to make you hot and sweaty, as a rule - helmets do.

Oh and,
4. Seat-belts have been statistically proven to reduce the rates of head injury and make conditions 'safer' on a population-basis - helmets have not.

[high_tea]

Well, it assumes some pretty dire consequences for utility cycling if they stay in place.

Exactly. And those dire consequences have already occurred! The only areas in which I have seen a mass turn around have been in some inner city area where a bicycle is SIGNIFICANTLY more practical than a car.

That's an important qualification, a reasonable one and one that is often not made.

Thank you. But it is a qualification that would have been made at LEAST a hundred times in this thread.

The Netherlands have seatbelt laws, right? I doubt that they are any more convenient there than there. In fact, if I may digress, they are for more inconvenient to me, and I suspect anyone else who has ever tried to get a toddler into a 5-point harness. I resist the urge to march against seatbelt laws because the impact on my freedom is, not to put too fine a point on it, trivial.

Fair enough that is YOUR opinion... In MANY other peoples opinion helmets are not and simply a trivial inconvenience. That is THEIR opinion. The opinions of the Dutch is quite clear from that video and the rate of helmet wearing which is <<1%. If it was trivial surely more Dutch would be wearing one for the minor safety reasons.

But the fact is the safety benefits of helmet wearing is little more on a bicycle than it is as a pedestrian. Would you MHLs as a sensible idea for pedestrians? Why not?

I'm much more leery of regulating pedestrians than cyclists in general. I regard being able to walk places as perhaps the most basic expression of freedom of movement imaginable, so interfering with that doesn't sit well with me.

Now mandatory helmets in motor vehicles I don't mind. Bring it on. You won't hear a peep out of me. Anyone who complains about freedom will get the same answer from me - it's a trivial imposition on your basic rights; conflating convenience with freedom is just silly.

[damhooligan]

I'm much more leery of regulating pedestrians than cyclists in general. I regard being able to walk places as perhaps the most basic expression of freedom of movement imaginable, so interfering with that doesn't sit well with me.

You dont think riding a bike is a basic expression of freedom of movement ?
A bike is cheap, and suitable for everyone.
Its very efficient, as it is faster then walking, and you are able to carry more items from doing grocerie shopping.
Its also a very healty way of transport and good for the enviroment.
Interfering with that, does not feel well with me.

[human909]

The bicycle has been extremely influential in basic freedom of movement. It is considered to have played a pivotal role in bringing about the emancipation of women. It continues to provide mobility for those who lack wealth both in Australia and in developing countries.

http://crankedmag.wordpress.com/issues/ ... -movement/
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-20/livi ... =PM:LIVING

it's a trivial imposition on your basic rights; conflating convenience with freedom is just silly.

No it isn't. Unfortunately Australia deems it fit to impose on our PERSONAL freedoms in so many different ways. It is quite sad really.

[Comedian]

Now mandatory helmets in motor vehicles I don't mind. Bring it on. You won't hear a peep out of me. Anyone who complains about freedom will get the same answer from me - it's a trivial imposition on your basic rights; conflating convenience with freedom is just silly.

MHL for motor vehicles would seriously help with safety. There is a 0.00000000 (recurring) chance of it getting up. People just won't have it. Despite what you think, having to put a helmet on in the car would result in a political revolution.

It's an unfortunate reality that the people who would not stand for it in the car are very likely the ones who are also the most deterred from cycling by MHL. However, since they have a happy normalised alternative .....

[Kenzo]

Anyone got stats on head injuries in cars? Would be interesting to compare against bike head injuries. IMO (more) head protection in a car is a waste of time... But I don't have any numbers to back that up.
But there is nothing stopping a person wearing a helmet in the car i.e. it is still a choice. Unlike for cyclists... The law has removed that freedom to choose.

[human909]

IMO (more) head protection in a car is a waste of time...

Head injuries are still quite common in cars though with more and more airbags things are getting better unless there is cell intrusion. Helmets would still certainly improve things, car car drivers are in no mood to give them up any time soon. Before the advent of multiple airbags, head injuries were quite common. Yet there was no push for helmets. Here is one study and discussion.

From a safety perspective a helmet is going to improve the safety of almost ANY activity and driving is included in this. But despite what some people in this thread think helmets are clearly not a non trivial imposition. So it comes down to convenience vs trade off.

Interesting, I went beach kayaking yesterday. My friends had helmets. Mine was still in the car. In rivers there is no way that I wouldn't have a helmet, but I though the beach would be ok. As I found out, ocean grove has LOTS of submerged rocks. While I never was in danger, I think the smarter move yesterday would have been to wear my helmet.

[KenGS]

Anyone got stats on head injuries in cars? Would be interesting to compare against bike head injuries. IMO (more) head protection in a car is a waste of time... But I don't have any numbers to back that up.
But there is nothing stopping a person wearing a helmet in the car i.e. it is still a choice. Unlike for cyclists... The law has removed that freedom to choose.

You can find some in http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-deta ... 0737421997

This report presents findings on serious injury, due to land transport accidents in 2008-09. There is a focus on road vehicle traffic crashes which accounted for nearly two-thirds of all serious injury. Land transport accidents accounted for 0.7% of all hospitalisations and 9.8% of all hospitalisations due to injury in Australia during 2008-09. For traffic (on-road) accidents, 47.1% of those seriously injured were car occupants, 24.0% were motorcyclists and 15.4% were pedal cyclists.

Body region injured
The body region injured in road vehicle traffic crashes differed according to road user group (Table 4.3.12). The head was the most commonly injured body region among car occupants and pedestrians while injuries to the shoulder and upper limb were most commonly observed among motorcyclists and pedal cyclists. Injuries to the thorax were also prominent among car occupants while injuries to the lower limbs were also prominent among pedestrians and motorcyclists. The head was the second most commonly injured body region among pedal cyclists.

[Kenzo]

Thanks!

So could you/I say you are more likely to receive a head injury in a car than on a bicycle per hour travelled?

[KenGS]

So could you/I say you are more likely to receive a head injury in a car than on a bicycle per hour travelled?

Not on the basis of that data. There is no estimate of hours spent travelling in that report. Interestingly they look at traffic crashes per 100,000 registered vehicles. An equivalent for bikes could be per bicycle sold with some multiplier

[high_tea]

The bicycle has been extremely influential in basic freedom of movement. It is considered to have played a pivotal role in bringing about the emancipation of women. It continues to provide mobility for those who lack wealth both in Australia and in developing countries.

http://crankedmag.wordpress.com/issues/ ... -movement/
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-20/livi ... =PM:LIVING

it's a trivial imposition on your basic rights; conflating convenience with freedom is just silly.

No it isn't. Unfortunately Australia deems it fit to impose on our PERSONAL freedoms in so many different ways. It is quite sad really.

Well now, I don't know exactly which laws you're referring to, because if you consider that level of imposition excessive, there are so very many to choose from. Sure, you could do away with them all, but that sounds pretty revolutionary to me, and MHL repeal is a minor and relatively uninteresting side-effect of such a cataclysmic change.

EDIT: Oh, and I never said cycling wasn't a big deal. I said, and I stand by it, that the right to walk around is a much much bigger deal. Fundamental, even.

[high_tea]

Now mandatory helmets in motor vehicles I don't mind. Bring it on. You won't hear a peep out of me. Anyone who complains about freedom will get the same answer from me - it's a trivial imposition on your basic rights; conflating convenience with freedom is just silly.

MHL for motor vehicles would seriously help with safety. There is a 0.00000000 (recurring) chance of it getting up. People just won't have it. Despite what you think, having to put a helmet on in the car would result in a political revolution.

You may well be right, but that would be a strong contender for my personal "Stupidest revolution ever" award. I've got a good slogan for it, though: "Give me convenience or give me death". The Dead Kennedys would probably do it pretty cheap...

[human909]

Well now, I don't know exactly which laws you're referring to, because if you consider that level of imposition excessive, there are so very many to choose from. Sure, you could do away with them all, but that sounds pretty revolutionary to me

It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little. We don't appreciate what we have so we are so willing to let it get taken away. (Compared to most countries in the world we are free and often envied for our freedom. Compared to most free democracies we are heavily regulated and controlled.

I'm not going to start a lesson here but it seems so very sad that you see a need for a government to impose their will on individual decisions that only should be a concern of the individual.

[Mulger bill]

Get off his back H, he's only thinking of the children

[damhooligan]

Now mandatory helmets in motor vehicles I don't mind. Bring it on. You won't hear a peep out of me. Anyone who complains about freedom will get the same answer from me - it's a trivial imposition on your basic rights; conflating convenience with freedom is just silly.

MHL for motor vehicles would seriously help with safety. There is a 0.00000000 (recurring) chance of it getting up. People just won't have it. Despite what you think, having to put a helmet on in the car would result in a political revolution.

You may well be right, but that would be a strong contender for my personal "Stupidest revolution ever" award. I've got a good slogan for it, though: "Give me convenience or give me death". The Dead Kennedys would probably do it pretty cheap...

Actually, i consider the mhl a stupid revolution.
And that slogan would work wonders for a repeal mhl slogan...

"Give me convenience or give me death"

[high_tea]

Well now, I don't know exactly which laws you're referring to, because if you consider that level of imposition excessive, there are so very many to choose from. Sure, you could do away with them all, but that sounds pretty revolutionary to me

It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little. We don't appreciate what we have so we are so willing to let it get taken away. (Compared to most countries in the world we are free and often envied for our freedom. Compared to most free democracies we are heavily regulated and controlled.

I'm not going to start a lesson here but it seems so very sad that you see a need for a government to impose their will on individual decisions that only should be a concern of the individual.

Strawman.

[high_tea]

Get off his back H, he's only thinking of the children

By calling out some hyperbolic claims about personal freedom? Whatever you reckon.

[jules21]

It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little.

including the freedom to exercise poor judgment and make mistakes.

[DavidS]

Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

This is not a trivial law. It is a law which actively discourages cycling. I find it a bit strange that people on a cycling forum, who profess to want to promote cycling, would agree with such a detrimental law.

DS

[Philipthelam]

It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little. We don't appreciate what we have so we are so willing to let it get taken away. (Compared to most countries in the world we are free and often envied for our freedom. Compared to most free democracies we are heavily regulated and controlled.

You are living in Australia and yet you complain about freedom. I take it you support anarchism then? Haha

You see MHL as a violation of your human rights and right to freedom. First world problems..

[Philipthelam]

Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

This is not a trivial law. It is a law which actively discourages cycling. I find it a bit strange that people on a cycling forum, who profess to want to promote cycling, would agree with such a detrimental law.

DS

...and it goes both ways, helmets make your head warmer in winter. What's your point?

I highly doubt that non cyclists will consider to cycle when it is 39 degrees whether you have to wear a helmet or not


For all the guys talking about MHL for cars are you saying that you would support MHL for bikes if we had MHL for cars? How did we even get to helmet use in cars... Haha

[damhooligan]

Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

This is not a trivial law. It is a law which actively discourages cycling. I find it a bit strange that people on a cycling forum, who profess to want to promote cycling, would agree with such a detrimental law.

DS

...and it goes both ways, helmets make your head warmer in winter. What's your point?

I highly doubt that non cyclists will consider to cycle when it is 39 degrees whether you have to wear a helmet or not

really ??

Without a mhl, we could , I dont know choose ?
Mayby choose to wear it in winter,cause it makes us warmer...
Choose not to wear it while its hot, cause its terrible..
Its so terrible, I prefer walking without a helmet, then riding with a helmet.

[jules21]

Whoever said making helmets mandatory is trivial clearly wasn't riding in Melbourne last Thursday afternoon. 39C and the helmet just makes it a lot worse.

harden up! i put in some of my fastest segments on last thursday evening's commute, without especially trying. it's only sweat!

[il padrone]

It is so sad that Australians value freedom so very little.

including the freedom to exercise poor judgment and make mistakes.

Actually..... yes! That is all a part of our freedom. I get to make my own mistakes, rather than have someone else say what mistakes I should and should not be making.

[Philipthelam]

I have heard people comment about the image of cycling. I bet this topic and thread damages cycling more than MHL and Lycra. Cyclists arguing over helmet laws has become a joke among non cyclists.


BTW There is still one question which I have posted numerous times in this thread which either

1. No one has seen it
2. No one has been bothered to answer it
3. No one knows the answer to it

If you want to see the question then go find it yourself..

After 200 pages you really have to ask what the purpose of this thread is. Clearly this has not been a discussion. In a discussion people are meant to be open to new ideas. But in fact It has just been the same stubborn old men who have been camping here. The men who who want to live in the past, in their own little golden time and feel better by whinging here. The same arguments are put forth and are rebutted by the same rebuttals... This thread has just been going around in circles. It's going nowhere. What's the point.

I hope to not look at this thread again. Incites too much hatred. Lets hope curiosity doesn't get the better of me.

I'm sleeping. Good night everyone, sweet dreams.