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 high_tea » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:26 pm

Xplora wrote: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


As I think I've said before, geting a government to accept that cycling, or active transport generally, is a policy objective worth pushing is the hard part. I don't know if, once I got them to swallow that particular camel, I'd lose too much sleep over whether they strain at the gnat of MHL repeal, myself. So to speak.

Xplora wrote: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.


Yes, changing the status quo is hard. Nothing new there. What lie are you talking about anyway? Would Hanlon's Razor perhaps do the job?

Xplora wrote: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.


MHLs are not the only reason for this, not even the main reason if you ask me. And the analogy with nuclear waste is perhaps the wierdest non sequitur of this whole thread. I can't be bothered reading through the whole thing to make sure, but it's right up there.

Xplora wrote:If the evidence doesn't heavily weigh in favour of the law, then it stands that abolition is easier than enforcement.


That's not how it's done, like it or not. Is there evidence, actual empirical evidence, supporting Mandatory Bell Laws? I doubt anyone's bothered looking, but there it is, to name but one example. There's a good reason for that too: that sort of evidence is difficult to obtain. Now, if you want to argue that MHLs by their nature demand this sort of proof where other laws don't, by all means give it a red-hot go, but you'll have to actually make that case. As a general proposition, it doesn't hold water.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

by BNA » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:20 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby human909 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:20 pm

high_tea wrote:As I think I've said before, geting a government to accept that cycling, or active transport generally, is a policy objective worth pushing is the hard part. I don't know if, once I got them to swallow that particular camel, I'd lose too much sleep over whether they strain at the gnat of MHL repeal, myself. So to speak.

What is the use of having a government accepting that cycling is a policy objective worth pushing when there are so few cyclists because of MHLs. You are trying to get the cart before you even have the horse. So to speak. :wink:

high_tea wrote:Is there evidence, actual empirical evidence, supporting Mandatory Bell Laws?

MHLs have made us the laughing stock of the rest of the world of utility cycling. They haven't killed of bike shares. They haven't lead to a dramatic shift in the landscape of cycling and a drop in cycling acceptance amongst the community. They don't act contrary to their original intention. And most importantly nobody cares!
human909
 
Posts: 4780
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:36 pm

I don't have bells on my bikes :oops:

Waste of time anyway.
...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: 25694
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:30 pm

I could see your point High T, except that the Parliament decided that cycling was important enough to apply an MHL when cyclists managed to survive for decades without one. You seem like you're happy to condemn the issue to the too hard basket because everyone else has, on the basis that it's not a major policy issue... however it must be, because it wouldn't have become law in the first place if it WAS such a minor issue.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5892
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby damhooligan » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:40 pm

Mulger bill wrote:I don't have bells on my bikes :oops:



you disgust me.... :mrgreen:
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 high_tea » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:56 am

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:As I think I've said before, geting a government to accept that cycling, or active transport generally, is a policy objective worth pushing is the hard part. I don't know if, once I got them to swallow that particular camel, I'd lose too much sleep over whether they strain at the gnat of MHL repeal, myself. So to speak.

What is the use of having a government accepting that cycling is a policy objective worth pushing when there are so few cyclists because of MHLs. You are trying to get the cart before you even have the horse. So to speak. :wink:

high_tea wrote:Is there evidence, actual empirical evidence, supporting Mandatory Bell Laws?

MHLs have made us the laughing stock of the rest of the world of utility cycling. They haven't killed of bike shares. They haven't lead to a dramatic shift in the landscape of cycling and a drop in cycling acceptance amongst the community. They don't act contrary to their original intention. And most importantly nobody cares!

Which arguments are all predicated on cycling being a policy objective worth pushing. Oops.

PS I care about MBLs. There's no data, plus it's personally inconvenient, whoops, meant to say a vicious despotic nanny state cutting down my freedom. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
/sarcasm
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:13 am

damhooligan wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:I don't have bells on my bikes :oops:



you disgust me.... :mrgreen:


Just to keep you happy, I relented and fitted these to the commuter last night...
Image
Lately, I've been running with one of these on a reel. It works! 8)
Image
...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: 25694
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:18 am

high_tea wrote:PS I care about MBLs. There's no data, plus it's personally inconvenient, whoops, meant to say a vicious despotic nanny state cutting down my freedom. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
/sarcasm

It really should be mandated for all I reckon. Just makes 'safety sense'.

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18290
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby jules21 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:24 am

high_tea wrote:That's not how it's done, like it or not. Is there evidence, actual empirical evidence, supporting Mandatory Bell Laws? I doubt anyone's bothered looking, but there it is, to name but one example. There's a good reason for that too: that sort of evidence is difficult to obtain. Now, if you want to argue that MHLs by their nature demand this sort of proof where other laws don't, by all means give it a red-hot go, but you'll have to actually make that case. As a general proposition, it doesn't hold water.

i agree with this. there is a widely held misconception that laws must be justified with objective statistical evidence. this is rarely the case, far more common is to throw some statistics in with some relevance to the argument but which hardly constitutes proof of the hypothesis. this typically comes as a revelation to people who have become motivated to research a given law (usually when they oppose it) and who then become convinced it's a giant hoax. it's not (at least, not automatically, for that reason) - that's just reality. it's hard to get good data for most stuff. as a result, many or even most laws are made as a judgment call, as much as supported by empirical evidence.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8644
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby human909 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:23 am

jules21 wrote:i agree with this. there is a widely held misconception that laws must be justified with objective statistical evidence.

I'm not sure that it is a widely held misconception. It has become that way in this thread because....
antiMHL-ist: MHL SUCKS!
proMHL-ist: I LOVE MY HELMET, YOU GUYS ARE LOONIES.
antiMHL-ist: Good for you, I don't like helmets I want to ride with the wind in my hair.
proMHL-ist: That is dangerous! Also think of the children! My mate dave had an accident and his helmet saved his life.
antiMHL-ist: It isn't dangerous. Helmets aren't necessary to be safe.
proMHL-ist: Show us EVIDENCE.
antiMHL-ist: Here you go, here is EVIDENCE.
proMHL-ist: Oh... That is wrong. Australia is different. Also cycling is dangerous. Helmets are needed. Its the law, deal with it.
:x
Last edited by human909 on Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4780
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:23 am

jules21 wrote:many or even most laws are made as a judgment call, as much as supported by empirical evidence.

And MANY of us strongly believe that judgment call was WRONG. Furthermore, if people want we can supply evidence to support our views. :idea:
human909
 
Posts: 4780
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jules21 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:55 pm

human909 wrote:
jules21 wrote:many or even most laws are made as a judgment call, as much as supported by empirical evidence.

And MANY of us strongly believe that judgment call was WRONG. Furthermore, if people want we can supply evidence to support our views. :idea:

i don't doubt it - but i'll save you the trouble :)
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8644
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby jcjordan » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:12 pm

il padrone wrote:
jules21 wrote:
human909 wrote: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.


The problem is that we no longer take responsibility for our own mistakes and judgments. We always need to find blame with someone else 'the pothole cause me to fall off and be injured so I will sue the transport authority rather than accepting that we were not riding to the conditions or were not paying attention.

This is why we have so many laws around 'Safety' to protect against the never ending stream of lawsuits.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby jules21 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:20 pm

jcjordan wrote: The problem is that we no longer take responsibility for our own mistakes and judgments. We always need to find blame with someone else 'the pothole cause me to fall off and be injured so I will sue the transport authority rather than accepting that we were not riding to the conditions or were not paying attention.

This is why we have so many laws around 'Safety' to protect against the never ending stream of lawsuits.

that's not quite right. you don't even need to blame someone, we have a no-blame system that guarantees tax-payers will pick up the bill for any type of stupidity which results in injury.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8644
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby human909 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:03 pm

jcjordan wrote:The problem is that we no longer take responsibility for our own mistakes and judgments. We always need to find blame with someone else 'the pothole cause me to fall off and be injured so I will sue the transport authority rather than accepting that we were not riding to the conditions or were not paying attention.

This is why we have so many laws around 'Safety' to protect against the never ending stream of lawsuits.


I completely agree. :D But that is another discussion in another thread. :wink:


jules21 wrote:that's not quite right. you don't even need to blame someone, we have a no-blame system that guarantees tax-payers will pick up the bill for any type of stupidity which results in injury.

Sure when it comes to ROAD accidents TAC will cover medical, lost income, etc..... for accidents. Workcover will meet medical, lost income etc... for accidents. But heaven help you if you don't fall under either of those categories.

Again the whether this is a good system or not is another discussion in another thread.
human909
 
Posts: 4780
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am


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

Postby greyhoundtom » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:29 pm


This study quotes the following;

For example, in Victoria, Australia, helmet use increased from 31% to 75%, and cycling fatalities
decreased by 48%, after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws, despite an increase in cycling among adults.

I'm glad they at least got that part of their research data correct. :roll: :roll:
User avatar
greyhoundtom
 
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
Location: Narre Warren, Victoria

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

Postby human909 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:17 pm



Seriously? :lol:

Not wearing a helmet while cycling was associated with an increased risk of dying as a result of sustaining a head injury.

If we had helmets for drivers and pedestrians then you would see similar results. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4780
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby DavidS » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:23 pm

greyhoundtom wrote:

This study quotes the following;

For example, in Victoria, Australia, helmet use increased from 31% to 75%, and cycling fatalities
decreased by 48%, after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws, despite an increase in cycling among adults.

I'm glad they at least got that part of their research data correct. :roll: :roll:


That bit about the increase in adult cyclists is a shocker. Wonder if anyone has pointed out how wrong it is.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby human909 » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:07 am

DavidS wrote:That bit about the increase in adult cyclists is a shocker. Wonder if anyone has pointed out how wrong it is.

Well it isn't wrong. That is if you believe the "surveys". :shock:

Surveys in Melbourne also indicated a 36% reduction in bicycle use by children during the first year of the law and an estimated increase in adult use of 44%. (Straight from the abstract of the reference given.)

I think that is entirely accurate. For years Melbournites were oppressed by being FORCED to choose of what to wear on their heads while cycling. Now they have the freedom of not having to choose what to wear on their head. They are also free to choose whatever colour helmet they want as long as it has an AS/NZS 2063:2008 sticker on the inside! :lol:
human909
 
Posts: 4780
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jules21 » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:01 am

it's obvious! there were a whole lot of bikes lying around after kid stopped riding them, and adults jumped on them! :mrgreen:
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8644
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby TailWind » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:04 pm

Unforeseen consequences of the MHL:
Image
Repeal!
Soma Double Cross 2012 - Commuter || Giant CitySpeed (Alfine 8 IGH) - Commuter || Bakfiets Long 2011 - Cargo Bike
User avatar
TailWind
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Mill Park, Melbourne

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

Postby human909 » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:43 pm

human909
 
Posts: 4780
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:18 pm

OMGosh think of the children!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/call- ... 2cmrd.html

Call for helmets amid surge in skateboard injuries

DOCTORS are calling for children to wear protective gear while riding skateboards and scooters amid fears they are causing serious injuries and, in some cases, permanent disability.

The director of trauma at the Royal Children's Hospital, Dr Joseph Crameri, said there had been an increase in the number of children with injuries from fast-moving toys, including bikes, rollerblades, scooters and skateboards, during the week after Christmas.

About 35 children came in that week compared with an average of 25 in previous years. About one in five needed to be admitted to hospital for at least one night.

Dr Crameri said although he did not know what had caused the surge, it was a good reminder for parents and children that helmets and protective gear, such as knee and elbow pads, were important.

Advertisement
''It's well accepted these days that kids who get on bikes wear helmets … but when kids sometimes get on scooters and skateboards and these sorts of things, there's not necessarily the same reaction to put a helmet on,'' he said. ''If they have a decent stack, they can get significant head injuries.''

Sydney neurosurgeon Brian Owler said he was seeing too many children injured while skateboarding. He said while broken bones were common, some children had died from their injuries or sustained blood clots on their brains from head injuries.

''There was one kid who ended up in a nursing home.''

Associate Professor Owler, who helped create the Don't Rush road safety campaign, said the message that helmets were important needed to be spread by young people. ''The only way that you can get teenagers to wear helmets is if other teenagers say it's a good idea.''

NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People Megan Mitchell said it was important for children to enjoy sporting activities outside, but parents should ensure they did so as safely as possible, by wearing helmets. She said injuries relating to so-called ''pedestrian conveyances'' - skateboards, scooters and rollerskates - had increased by an average of 2.6 per cent each year in the decade since 1998-99, while bicycle-related injuries dropped about 2.9 per cent each year.

Dr Crameri said among children coming into the Royal Children's Hospital, skateboards and scooters were collectively causing about 47 per cent of injuries compared with bikes, which were causing about 35 per cent. He said parents should also be cautious with motorbikes, which caused 12 per cent of injuries and quad bikes which caused 5 per cent.

Melbourne teenager David recommended protective gear after breaking his ankle in three places on Christmas Day while riding his mate's scooter at a skate park. The 14-year-old was taken by ambulance to the Royal Children's Hospital, where he underwent surgery. He is on crutches for six weeks and has to have more surgery in coming months. There is a chance the injury will stunt the growth in one of his joints, causing further problems.

''I won't be able to do any exercise for six months after the cast comes off. It sucks,'' he said.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/call- ... z2HlblsXA7


EDIT:
Does this forum really change OM.G to OMGosh? Religious influence wow!
human909
 
Posts: 4780
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Mulger bill » Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:05 am

Wondering how young David from the last paragraph is going to get people to strap hemlets to their ankles? :?

And as for you, Dr Crameri you lost ALL cred with me when you called bikes toys :roll:
...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: 25694
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: outnabike



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