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 Dec 06, 2012 10:09 am

Kenzo wrote:But no, I doubt jacks was trolling - more just making a little joke which you've decided to turn into a literal statement.


The has been significant peer reviewed research showing that excessive wearing of a helmet causes a degradation in the wearers humour lobe. Thus rendering those who wear helmets regularly less able to understand and recognise jokes.
human909
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

by BNA » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:21 am

BNA
 

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

Postby DentedHead » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:21 am

Admittedly, it can be hard to emphasize humour in text, but without the use of smilies I'd assume it was a serious comment, or trolling. While my boy and I occasionally race, just having him along doesn't make it a race, and as for riding with my wife, "success" is measured by enjoyment only. She doesn't care how fast anyone else rides. I have no issue with racing, (so long as it doesn't endanger people not involved), and love the feeling of wind in my hair :)

Anyway, I'd not usually "feed" trolls, but jacks' statement (as written) seemed so mind-numbingly stupid I forgot about troll-diets. If jacks had written "Any ride with me and at least one other rider is a "race"" or something similar, or even just added a smiley, I'd have had a chuckle and nothing more.

Dent.
DentedHead
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:23 pm

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

Postby damhooligan » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:19 pm

Baldy wrote:At first I thought it was a language thing but now I am starting to think you are a roo short in the top paddock..


Is this really nessesary ?

So my opinion is different then yours so i am a moron ??

Baldy wrote:am sure your mates here will come to your aid with plenty of spin, which is understandable,you need it.


Need ??
No , I dont need aid to spin things.

If its anything I need, then that would be a bit more respect for the fact that I have a opnion that is not the same as yours.
Even when thats the wrong one.
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 Dec 07, 2012 8:50 pm

Baldy wrote:am sure your mates here will come to your aid with plenty of spin, which is understandable,you need it.

I'm not his mate and I'll try not to use spin. But I will attempt to come to his aid. (or at least address the issue)

There is some connection between the two topics. It is regarding the extent and influence of government on individual freedom VS individual safety. The similarities largely end there. Insulting others intelligence because they place different values on things is not conducive to pleasant or constructive discussion.

My personal views? MHLs we already know. I'm a big fan of freedom so I'm not about to advocate controls on Strava. However I do share damhooligan's 'concern'. I it was a matter of motoring hoons that were killing others then my opinions would be clear. At present it is a minority of cyclists largely harming themselves. I'm not a fan of banning it, but it is something that society should be 'concerned' about.

(Other individual things society is 'concerned' about are drugs. I'm also PRO freedom here, but for largely other reasons.)
human909
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby biker jk » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:25 pm

The anti-MHL crowd ride through red lights but are worried about Strava. :roll:
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:47 pm

biker jk wrote:The anti-MHL crowd ride through red lights but are worried about Strava. :roll:

-the rest of the world operates just fine without MHLs
-ignoring red lights and using your own judgement is far safer than taking traffic signals on faith
-Strava has concerning qualities, doesn't mean it can't be fun!

If you see contradictions there then it is your reasoning that is operating poorly. :idea:
human909
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Chuck » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:25 am

human909 wrote:Insulting others intelligence because they place different values on things is not conducive to pleasant or constructive discussion.


human909 wrote:The has been significant peer reviewed research showing that excessive wearing of a helmet causes a degradation in the wearers humour lobe. Thus rendering those who wear helmets regularly less able to understand and recognise jokes.


Your claim is absurd.


But it seems that you are so busy being sanctimonious that all perspective is lost.


If they don't appreciate or feel offended by the parody then they have issues and probably not just self-confidence issues.



Don't be stupid


There is no bleeding heart mentality just logical and rational consideration. Something that you struggle with.




Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Image
FPR Ragamuffin
User avatar
Chuck
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Hiding in the bunch

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

Postby Nobody » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:34 am

So...after 213+ pages, are we any closer to getting the law changed?
Nobody
 
Posts: 6660
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby high_tea » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:39 pm

Nope. Neither camp can produce an argument I find convincing. If they can't convince me - sympathetic but skeptical - they're on a hiding to nothing out in the world. I'm content to sit on the fence and point out some of the patent nonsense that gets trotted out. Plenty of that to keep me busy :D
high_tea
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:31 pm

Chuck wrote:Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Your ability to compare value judgments and opinions to logical argument seems to be lacking. Furthermore you don't seem to be able to differential between a comment relating to an argument and a comment relating to a person.
human909
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Chuck » Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:14 pm

human909 wrote:Furthermore you don't seem to be able to differential between a comment relating to an argument and a comment relating to a person.


Ok
Image
FPR Ragamuffin
User avatar
Chuck
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:19 pm
Location: Hiding in the bunch

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

Postby Comedian » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:08 pm

Nobody wrote:So...after 213+ pages, are we any closer to getting the law changed?


And what a shame. I think a few people have re-looked at their position on this though.

Nonetheless the type of car centric politicians that believe in this law are still there, and I think they are happy enough with marginalised cycling. IMHO it won't be until it becomes a national imperative that cycling take off that this law will be looked at. I think peak oil will be the only trigger big enough.
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 damhooligan » Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:18 pm

high_tea wrote:Nope. Neither camp can produce an argument I find convincing. If they can't convince me - sympathetic but skeptical - they're on a hiding to nothing out in the world. I'm content to sit on the fence and point out some of the patent nonsense that gets trotted out. Plenty of that to keep me busy :D



Interesting.

If neither camp has produced an convincing argument, wouldn't you say the discussion is evenly balanced ??

And if the mhl camp has not produced a valid argument as you say, then why should that be enough to keep the law?
Does't that in a way prove the law is flawed ??


p.s., glad we have a nonsense spotter on the forum
We dont have enough on these forums....
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 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:38 pm

Nobody wrote:So...after 213+ pages, are we any closer to getting the law changed?

I've been aware of a few people who've looked more closely at the evidence for MHL and have changed their opinion on the law. I'm happy that this is all a positive step towards some change, sometime in future.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18814
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 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:30 pm

damhooligan wrote:
high_tea wrote:Nope. Neither camp can produce an argument I find convincing. If they can't convince me - sympathetic but skeptical - they're on a hiding to nothing out in the world. I'm content to sit on the fence and point out some of the patent nonsense that gets trotted out. Plenty of that to keep me busy :D



Interesting.

If neither camp has produced an convincing argument, wouldn't you say the discussion is evenly balanced ??

And if the mhl camp has not produced a valid argument as you say, then why should that be enough to keep the law?
Does't that in a way prove the law is flawed ??


Short answer: no.
Slightly longer answer: I suspect that the policy considerations were relatively narrow. In particular, I don't think that the effect on participation was a major consideration, just like the effects of mandatory seatbelts on motoring participation weren't. That's the major substantive criticism of MHLs: they're bad for participation. The lack of data on efficacy, that's just sloppy. Doesn't make it a bad law, though. I can accept that the process was flawed. It doesn't follow that the law is flawed. It does prove that transport policy is flawed, but I don't expect that's news to anyone.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:54 am

high_tea wrote:Doesn't make it a bad law, though. I can accept that the process was flawed. It doesn't follow that the law is flawed.


I agree the law isn't 'flawed' it works precisely as intended to force cyclists to wear helmets. However forcing cyclists to wear helmets is an onerous breech of freedom of choice that has worsened cycling safety. I don't care if the process was flawed or not. The fact are detrimental to cycling and should be removed.
human909
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:10 am

I reckon it's unarguable that if the process to develop the law is flawed, then it certainly is grounds for abolition particularly when background data isn't available to show this is a really big improvement to our nation. The huge numbers of cyclists in other cities and countries around the world show that it is a good idea to have as many riders as possible, if only for green reasons. I don't care about the green angle much (born to a family of 3rd generation mechanics) but it is a good reason, internationally, to maximise bike use. There is enough steel in an engine block to make 6 bikes, but no petrol is required to move those bikes once created LOL

I think a dirty little secret on the MHL Is that it shows how the slippery slope occurs in public policy. An ill considered lie is presented and accepted, and once the law is changed the landscape changes so much that the possibility of return is impossible without a very long hard slog. This is definitely beyond the cyclist lobby right now.

The rules around nuclear waste and open cut mining are similar - once you start a major open cut mine, you can't go back. That mine is there forever in human terms. The nuclear waste is likely to outlast human evolution (let alone civilisation itself). You have to be very conservative when considering the impacts of these decisions. We have to look at 20 years of MHL and realise that nothing has improved for riders, cycling, congestion and general wellbeing as a result of the law. We aren't as cyclist friendly as any European nation despite being flatter, better climate, more outdoorsy culture, etc.

If the evidence doesn't heavily weigh in favour of the law, then it stands that abolition is easier than enforcement.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6283
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:31 am

It is little bit off topic but drug prohibition laws seem almost as useless as mandatory helmet laws. Both are laws with "good intentions" to protect people from themselves however both are greatly counter-productive. But both have great inertia that needs to be turned around in public and political thought. Conservatives thinks who believe that authority is right and people need to be looked after from themselves seem to be the most stubborn.

Today's article on drug prohibition:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rethi ... 2b3dn.html


(I'm not suggesting that if you are against MHL then you are against drug prohibition (or vice versa) . But both do face growing opposition of those who realise in that the laws fails in their aims. I personally have not used illicit drugs, but I don't care if somebody does. My big concern is the amount of crime caused by prohibition including the 100,000s of homicides across the globe each year related to the drug trade.)
human909
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby high_tea » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:59 pm

To me, the two are completely different. Drug prohibition has failed miserably at behaviour modification. People still take drugs, they just can't get them legally. MHLs have been reasonably successful at their intended behaviour modification. The unintended consequences occur for exactly the opposite reason.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:59 pm

high_tea wrote:MHLs have been reasonably successful at their intended behaviour modification.

What is that?

Making the lot of cyclists in traffic safer? Increasing cyclist numbers on the roads? Or getting cyclists off the roads??

Fail on both of the first two. Success for the hidden agenda.

:roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18814
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 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:06 pm

il padrone wrote:
high_tea wrote:MHLs have been reasonably successful at their intended behaviour modification.

What is that?

Making the lot of cyclists in traffic safer? Increasing cyclist numbers on the roads? Or getting cyclists off the roads??

Fail on both of the first two. Success for the hidden agenda.

:roll:


Getting cyclists to wear helmets, of course. As to the "hidden agenda", I don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity (or policy tunnel vision, or what-have-you).
high_tea
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:08 pm

high_tea wrote:In particular, I don't think that the effect on participation was a major consideration, just like the effects of mandatory seatbelts on motoring participation weren't. That's the major substantive criticism of MHLs: they're bad for participation.

Does anybody really think the seat-belt law had a single scrap of impact on motor vehicle use? I sure don't. People just clipped them up and drove - no real impact upon your use of the car, actually it has boosted car sales as now larger families need to get two cars or a people-mover. New markets, new sales.

For bicycle helmets we are talking about a large insulating lump of foam, placed on your head (the prime aspect of personal identity) and used for the operation of a human-powered vehicle that requires personal exertion. And something you need to carry around with you when not using the bike and remember to bring along. The comparison with seat-belt law simply doesn't stack up, they are not comparable!
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18814
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 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:14 pm

high_tea wrote:As to the "hidden agenda", I don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity (or policy tunnel vision, or what-have-you).

A policy pushed by the Royal Australian College of Surgeons (renowned drivers of Saabs, Merc and similar tosser's cars). Also pushed by the RACV. The malice, or at very least blatant self-interest and arrogance, is very apparent - always was.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18814
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 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:05 pm

il padrone wrote:
high_tea wrote:In particular, I don't think that the effect on participation was a major consideration, just like the effects of mandatory seatbelts on motoring participation weren't. That's the major substantive criticism of MHLs: they're bad for participation.

Does anybody really think the seat-belt law had a single scrap of impact on motor vehicle use? I sure don't. People just clipped them up and drove - no real impact upon your use of the car, actually it has boosted car sales as now larger families need to get two cars or a people-mover. New markets, new sales.

Shrug. My point was that they weren't in the habit of considering such things, and still aren't.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby high_tea » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:10 pm

il padrone wrote:
high_tea wrote:As to the "hidden agenda", I don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity (or policy tunnel vision, or what-have-you).

A policy pushed by the Royal Australian College of Surgeons (renowned drivers of Saabs, Merc and similar tosser's cars). Also pushed by the RACV. The malice, or at very least blatant self-interest and arrogance, is very apparent - always was.


Hanlon's Razor (sorry, I forgot the name before) works just fine for me on that one too.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



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