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 DavidS » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:28 pm

Parents make decisions for children. The point of getting rid of the mandatory part of MHLs is to allow adults to decide for themselves and for their children. Different parents may make different choices.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

by BNA » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:48 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby human909 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:48 pm

jules21 wrote:
DentedHead wrote:As for my opposition to MHL's, it's the "M" I oppose, not so much the "H".

but it's mandatory for your kid(s). the only difference is, it's your decision, not the govt's. is that the issue? i'm not trying to take a shot at you, just trying to define what it is about MHLs that people object to.


Surely you jest? :shock:

I believe that can mandate that their 6 year olds should be in bed sometime before midnight. But that doesn't mean I support a government curfew for all citizens. :lol:


Jules I object to the government interfering with my basic freedoms as an adult! The fact that so few people in Australia have a concept of proper freedom is appalling.
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:16 pm

Had to think of this thread over the past week as I was doing 2 centuries in 35+ degree heat up some cookin' climbs. At least, my head was cooking... it's simply straight out retardation to imply that the helmet isn't heating your head excessively (and I buzz my head real short!). I am fine with wearing the lid, but there are some tasks that even a nice top end helmet isn't capable of lowering the heat anymore!
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby DentedHead » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:22 am

jules21 wrote:
DentedHead wrote:As for my opposition to MHL's, it's the "M" I oppose, not so much the "H".

but it's mandatory for your kid(s). the only difference is, it's your decision, not the govt's. is that the issue? i'm not trying to take a shot at you, just trying to define what it is about MHLs that people object to.


There are a few of reasons a lid is mandatory for my boy (in the DH household I mean, separate from the legal reason). For a start, he has less ability to control his machine, and is more prone the the type of head injury a helmet is actually effective for (linear, sub 20kph impact).

Second, he lacks the experience needed to make a judgment call on whether its safe to go without in a given circumstance. I'll ride a remote bike-path lidless, but not suburban streets. He wouldn't make that distinction yet.

Third, while he's a minor, as his parent it's my job to make some decisions for him until he has the experience needed to make those decisions for himself. It is not the gov't's job to make this sort of decision for me. I'm not a child, and the gov't is not my parent.

Like I said, in most circumstances, I'd wear a helmet anyway. It's not the wearing of a helmet I object too, it's having the choice taken from me. Once he is old enough, my son will not need my rules to guide him either (hopefully, if I've done my job as a parent properly).


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

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

Postby Comedian » Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:30 am

Xplora wrote:Had to think of this thread over the past week as I was doing 2 centuries in 35+ degree heat up some cookin' climbs. At least, my head was cooking... it's simply straight out retardation to imply that the helmet isn't heating your head excessively (and I buzz my head real short!). I am fine with wearing the lid, but there are some tasks that even a nice top end helmet isn't capable of lowering the heat anymore!

I believe in Europe it's very common to climb with the lid on the bars and then pop it on for the descent. Alas that isn't an option here.

It makes perfect sense too.. we're always being told we radiate a vast amount of heat through our head... so they mandate us putting on foam esky's whenever we ride. Great. A rule made by people who will never ride for other people they don't really care about.
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: 4414
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby ILMB » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:45 am

Comedian wrote:
Xplora wrote:Had to think of this thread over the past week as I was doing 2 centuries in 35+ degree heat up some cookin' climbs. At least, my head was cooking... it's simply straight out retardation to imply that the helmet isn't heating your head excessively (and I buzz my head real short!). I am fine with wearing the lid, but there are some tasks that even a nice top end helmet isn't capable of lowering the heat anymore!

I believe in Europe it's very common to climb with the lid on the bars and then pop it on for the descent. Alas that isn't an option here.

It makes perfect sense too.. we're always being told we radiate a vast amount of heat through our head... so they mandate us putting on foam esky's whenever we ride. Great. A rule made by people who will never ride for other people they don't really care about.


Yup. The helmet in the heat of the last week or so is a serious challenge. I've started popping it into my front basket when I get too hot. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to ride, and the bike is my mode of transport. IMO overheating is more of a likely life-threatening issue than the possibility of an accident that may involve a head injury.

The helmet will stay back on when these crazy temperatures abate.
User avatar
ILMB
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:15 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:48 am

Xplora wrote:Had to think of this thread over the past week as I was doing 2 centuries in 35+ degree heat up some cookin' climbs. At least, my head was cooking... it's simply straight out retardation to imply that the helmet isn't heating your head excessively (and I buzz my head real short!). I am fine with wearing the lid, but there are some tasks that even a nice top end helmet isn't capable of lowering the heat anymore!

Depends on the quality of your helmet and its venting.

I bought a new Specialized helmet recently. Riding in the Otways in the recent heat I noticed that I did not get any of the usual drips into the eyes. This helmet is excellent for ventilation. In fact wearing it was no different or hotter than wearing the sun-hat I had with me for use off the bike.


Note the 'flow-through' air channels

Image
Last edited by il padrone on Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19612
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:09 am

Try THIS on for size ILMB. Excellentventing and channeling. Methinks I'll have to invest in a shower cap with little cutouts for the AyUps to go over the top of mine come winter time. :?

Shaun
...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: 26345
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby ILMB » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:20 am

Thanks Shaun, but my current helmet has at least as many cut outs and air holes, and looks similar aerodynamically, so I don't know how a change would materially benefit :( It is also high-viz yellow, and has a reflective finish.
User avatar
ILMB
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:15 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:27 am

human909 wrote:Jules I object to the government interfering with my basic freedoms as an adult! The fact that so few people in Australia have a concept of proper freedom is appalling.

if that's true, then why have you and other objectors to MHLs spent so many pages arguing that they are ineffective, rather than just making the simple point that it's your right to decide whether to wear a helmet or not, even if it places you at risk?
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9001
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 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:15 am

ILMB wrote:Thanks Shaun, but my current helmet has at least as many cut outs and air holes


As helmets start to get more holes than foam they cease to be called helmets. They become brain sieves. :wink: :shock:
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:19 am

Comedian wrote:
Xplora wrote:Had to think of this thread over the past week as I was doing 2 centuries in 35+ degree heat up some cookin' climbs. At least, my head was cooking... it's simply straight out retardation to imply that the helmet isn't heating your head excessively (and I buzz my head real short!). I am fine with wearing the lid, but there are some tasks that even a nice top end helmet isn't capable of lowering the heat anymore!

I believe in Europe it's very common to climb with the lid on the bars and then pop it on for the descent. Alas that isn't an option here.

It makes perfect sense too.. we're always being told we radiate a vast amount of heat through our head... so they mandate us putting on foam esky's whenever we ride. Great. A rule made by people who will never ride for other people they don't really care about.


In general, heat loss is essential to provide thermoregulation and prevent excessive heat build-up in the body to avoid the consequences of heat stroke. However, heat loss in the head is the same as for any exposed body part.


http://researchfrontiers.uark.edu/12401.php
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:59 am

jules21 wrote:if that's true, then why have you and other objectors to MHLs spent so many pages arguing that they are ineffective, rather than just making the simple point that it's your right to decide whether to wear a helmet or not, even if it places you at risk?

Seriously Jules!? :shock: I have argued the freedom line multiple times and you have rebutted it with public health system arguments. :roll: Is your memory that bad? In fact refer to my very first non rebuttal post in this thread:

human 909 (AT) Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:07 pm
Laws, in general, remove freedoms. Unless there is a clear and just reason to infringe on a citizens freedom then the law shouldn't be passed. Speeding laws make sense as unsafe driving can infringe on the fundamental rights of others. Helmet laws do not.

Unfortunately, in Australia we most of us have very little concept of freedom and we are more than happy to let our government dictate our lives. Hence more and more we live in a nanny state and politicians do what they do best and force their will on others.

Helmets are not mandatory in hundreds of other more dangerous and risky activities where they could be far more beneficial. Why is cycling singled out? (Probably because when it was passed cycling was seen as a activity mainly for children.)
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby wilddemon » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:07 pm

DavidS wrote:Parents make decisions for children. The point of getting rid of the mandatory part of MHLs is to allow adults to decide for themselves and for their children. Different parents may make different choices.

DS


Kids not wearing helmets gets on my goat (not literally). IMO kids should all wear helmets (cycling, scooters, skateboards), cops should police it and it will just become a normal, accepted practice. Yeah I know we shouldn't have a "nanny" state but it is part of governments' responsibility to protect their people from themselves - seatbelts, gun laws, etc etc. If you think that helmets should be optional should seatbelts also be optional?
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:20 pm

wilddemon wrote:Kids not wearing helmets gets on my goat (not literally). IMO kids should all wear helmets (cycling, scooters, skateboards), cops should police it and it will just become a normal, accepted practice.


http://youtu.be/OrQ-d2PBUto
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19612
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:51 pm

il padrone wrote:
wilddemon wrote:Kids not wearing helmets gets on my goat (not literally). IMO kids should all wear helmets (cycling, scooters, skateboards), cops should police it and it will just become a normal, accepted practice.


http://youtu.be/OrQ-d2PBUto




Fantastic!

That is what cycling for kids should be about!
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby DentedHead » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:18 pm

wilddemon wrote:... it is part of governments' responsibility to protect their people from themselves...


I strongly disagree. It is the responsibility of the gov't to protect us from OTHERS, not ourselves. I'm responsible for protecting myself, not a collection of politicians and bureaucrats. This opinion that it's up to the gov't to "protect us from ourselves" is how so many of our freedoms have been removed.


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

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

Postby Comedian » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:28 pm

wilddemon wrote:
DavidS wrote:Parents make decisions for children. The point of getting rid of the mandatory part of MHLs is to allow adults to decide for themselves and for their children. Different parents may make different choices.

DS


Kids not wearing helmets gets on my goat (not literally). IMO kids should all wear helmets (cycling, scooters, skateboards), cops should police it and it will just become a normal, accepted practice. Yeah I know we shouldn't have a "nanny" state but it is part of governments' responsibility to protect their people from themselves - seatbelts, gun laws, etc etc. If you think that helmets should be optional should seatbelts also be optional?

I actually think helmets should be mandatory up till age 12. After that, they should be optional.

I believe anything we can do to encourage kids to build a habit if cycling in their teens should be encouraged. Helmets are a disincentive for teens - and particularly females IMHO.
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: 4414
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby ILMB » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:32 pm

DentedHead wrote:...It is the responsibility of the gov't to protect us from OTHERS, not ourselves. I'm responsible for protecting myself


+1
User avatar
ILMB
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:15 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby wilddemon » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:16 pm

This is from http://www.lessonsindemocracy.org/forum/govtresp.html

Having examined the legitimate roles of government, it is also appropriate to consider what it should not do. And for this, a basic provision is that government should not attempt to protect us from ourselves. We have free will and we must retain the ability to use it as we choose, even if this involves danger. The government should not tell us how to live our lives. It should not treat us as children, by assuming the role of a highly restrictive parent.

I need some more goats!

Am I being the highly restrictive parent? I mean, I don't care particularly if you hit heroin every day of the week but I want my son to wear a helmet. So are the liberals here also campaigning for shooting galleries and looser gun laws alongside removing mandatory seatbelt laws? If highly addictive drugs were readily available then they wouldn't contribute (so much) to crime. But are we really debating some individual right to choose whether we hurt ourselves or not? I'm not. I'm comfortable with MHL probably in part because I would choose to wear a helmet anyway. I'm not comfortable with repealing MHL because I'd like my son to be forced to wear a helmet. Yes I know the irony in that if the person (me) riding on the road didn't have a helmet they would get done (but I always wear one), whereas cops don't seem to give a toss whether the kids wear helmets or not (and they never seem to wear one).
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby simonn » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:19 pm

wilddemon wrote:seatbelt laws?


...are different, apparently.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:58 pm

wilddemon wrote:Yeah I know we shouldn't have a "nanny" state but it is part of governments' responsibility to protect their people from themselves - seatbelts, gun laws, etc etc. If you think that helmets should be optional should seatbelts also be optional?

Godwin's Law beckons thee... there are a truckload of laws enacted that have put the interests of one party in front of another with no reasonable justification beyond basic discrimination. I'm somewhat ambivalent personally about suffrage but denying women the vote is not something that you can really justify except for basic discrimination (good or bad). Denying Aboriginals the vote, same deal. This was to protect the democratic process from these people. Doesn't that scare you? It should.

Seatbelts SHOULD be optional. It is legal to smoke and drink and eat badly and stay out in the sun too long, and plenty more people are dying from those things than seatbelts. The responsibility of the Government should be in regulating the facilities available - I think a helmet standard is a great idea. Recommended dietary intake, great idea. Ads to slip slop slap. I do not give a toss about those three things in my life. I must eat 25% more than the RDI to maintain my weight at a lowly 72kgs. I tan like a madman... but it's good to have the alternatives known, and to have scientifically established standards to assist in your decision making.

It doesn't matter what the speed limit is, or the RDI for booze, or what the rules are about seatbelts... someone will choose to disregard those rules. We need to establish which rules are going to be enforceable, and which ones are really worth the effort of enforcement. If you fight a helmet charge, you have suddenly caused an ENORMOUS social cost to community, because the courts are damn expensive to run and the amount of paperwork and time to go through all that is just obscene compared to the gravity of the charge being laid. When you consider that a lot of crime simply isn't even charged by the police (because the likelihood of successful prosecution is minimal) and there are much greater dangers facing cyclists that have no real legal consideration (close shaves aka an inch from putting you in hospital!?), we have to consider the usefulness of a helmet law. I don't need you to force my kids to wear a lid, I need you to force the drivers around my kids to behave like their vehicle isn't a toy. I don't need to take licences away from people who don't put seatbelts on kids, I need you to design roads that make it safe for everyone to use.

If you misunderstand the role of the Parliament in our society, you'll let them get away with absolute horror. Do you realise that Rudd's Government borrowed that 900 bucks they gave you? I work in lending. Only a madman borrows 900 bucks and pays interest on it without questioning the person giving you the money. Your kids will be paying back that money. How many debts do you want to leave your kids? Probably none. Yet we've let this Government borrow huge amounts of money, so people can spend it on Chinese TVs? I ain't happy about it, but I accept the economic reasoning... the USA has done similar things, but gave the 900 to the loan sharks who caused the problem!!! That's what misunderstanding the role of Government means. They get away with heinous crimes of morality, economics and logic, and end up screwing us all for their agenda. Yay.

Helmets are part of that picture.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:44 pm

wilddemon wrote:Am I being the highly restrictive parent?

There isn't any debate here about parents choices over their children.

wilddemon wrote:I mean, I don't care particularly if you hit heroin every day of the week but I want my son to wear a helmet. So are the liberals here also campaigning for shooting galleries and looser gun laws alongside removing mandatory seatbelt laws?

Start the thread and I'll join the debate. Regarding lax gun laws? No. Guns were invented to kill people. That is still their primary role in the world. Keeping it citizens from violent harm to one another certainly is a role of government! :)

wilddemon wrote:If highly addictive drugs were readily available then they wouldn't contribute (so much) to crime.

Yep. And many well respected individuals advocate less restriction on drugs for this very reason. :idea:

wilddemon wrote:But are we really debating some individual right to choose whether we hurt ourselves or not? I'm not.

Wearing a helmet isn't choosing to hurt yourself! :?

wilddemon wrote:I'm comfortable with MHL probably in part because I would choose to wear a helmet anyway. I'm not comfortable with repealing MHL because I'd like my son to be forced to wear a helmet.

So you don't seem to embrace freedom at all. You seem to be embracing laws that align with your choices. :x
human909
 
Posts: 5299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby wilddemon » Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:40 pm

Looks like we opened Pandora the Xplora's box!
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby wilddemon » Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:04 pm

Yeah sorry, its all a bit convenient for me.

I honestly thought it was pro or anti MHL thread, not "freedom" thread, whatever you might think that is.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



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

> FREE BNA Stickers