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

[il padrone]

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

[human909]

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!

[DentedHead]

... 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.

[Comedian]

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.

[ILMB]

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

+1

[wilddemon]

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).

[simonn]

seatbelt laws?

...are different, apparently.

[Xplora]

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.

[human909]

Am I being the highly restrictive parent?

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

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!

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.

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!

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.

[wilddemon]

Looks like we opened Pandora the Xplora's box!

[wilddemon]

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.

[Xplora]

I honestly thought it was pro or anti MHL thread, not "freedom" thread, whatever you might think that is.

It is. There are reasons for each side of the fence existing. If you don't think that forcing the population of riders to wear a helmet regardless of your personal preference is wrong, why not force them to have licences as well? Eye tests? Ban lycra? Ban bike weights under 12kgs? Mandatory cycling caps? I can put together a sensible sounding argument for all those things as well as helmets. Civil freedoms are important in Australia 2013. People spent the last 1000 years dying to keep those freedoms. Why give your freedom away so cheaply? Will you only get upset when you can't ride comfortably anymore because you're forced to wear a Campy cycling cap everywhere?

[Mulger bill]

This thread is about discussing whether MHLs are a good thing, both from the personal freedom perspective and whether they have actually had a negative societal impact.

Changing the law will not change my behaviour one iota, where I now choose to ride bare, I will continue to do so. Everywhere else will see me in a lid.
My kids have never had a choice. They WILL wear a helmet in my vision and I'm pretty sure they do everywhere else. The fact that they are 17 and 20yo these days is immaterial. My dictatorial act has hopefully thought them to think rather than blindly obey (everyone but me )

[human909]

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.

And I honestly thought that it would be obvious to most that those like myself who are "anti MHL" are simply fighting for the FREEDOM to choose what to wear on our heads while cycling. Many of us will continue wearing our helmets cycling regardless of the laws!

[wilddemon]

And I honestly thought that it would be obvious to most that those like myself who are "anti MHL" are simply fighting for the FREEDOM to choose what to wear on our heads while cycling. Many of us will continue wearing our helmets cycling regardless of the laws!

Fight the good fight. I will continue to wear my helmet regardless of the outcome.

Note: can't help thinking about Monty Python: "we will fight for your right to have babies!"

[Mulger bill]

Paraphrasis much?

Yet another one who seems to think that dropping MHLs will see helmets banned. Sad really.

[human909]

And I honestly thought that it would be obvious to most that those like myself who are "anti MHL" are simply fighting for the FREEDOM to choose what to wear on our heads while cycling. Many of us will continue wearing our helmets cycling regardless of the laws!

Fight the good fight. I will continue to wear my helmet regardless of the outcome.

Note: can't help thinking about Monty Python: "we will fight for your right to have babies!"

As far as I see it I am fighting for the improvement and advancement of cycling in Australia. I see that as a cause worthy of fighting for. I believe that we should encourage and make cycling accessible to all Australians. That we shouldn't be discouraging cycling by exaggerating the safety risks. We should be promoting cycling to everyone, not just those wanting to be enthusiasts!

In contrast you seem to be against it simply because YOU are happy wearing a helmet. That seems a little self centred to me.

[wilddemon]

In contrast you seem to be against it simply because YOU are happy wearing a helmet. That seems a little self centred to me.

Eh? What are you telling me that I am against?

[wilddemon]

Paraphrasis much?

Yet another one who seems to think that dropping MHLs will see helmets banned. Sad really.

Yeah? who said that they think dropping MHLs will see helmets banned? Interpretis much?

[il padrone]

WOW! I did not realise that the push to get mandatory helmet laws introduced began so early - the RACS lobbying parliament in 1978

The RACS claimed in 1978 that cyclists should wear helmets, but provided no evidence of efficacy. Dr Trinca said:

“We could perhaps worry a little less about and take a little less time in proving what is precisely right according to all standards … As doctors we are impatient. We cannot wait for 2 or 3 years” evaluation.”

[DavidS]

As far as I see it I am fighting for the improvement and advancement of cycling in Australia. I see that as a cause worthy of fighting for. I believe that we should encourage and make cycling accessible to all Australians. That we shouldn't be discouraging cycling by exaggerating the safety risks. We should be promoting cycling to everyone, not just those wanting to be enthusiasts!

In contrast you seem to be against it simply because YOU are happy wearing a helmet. That seems a little self centred to me.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Does anyone seriously claim that MHLs don't discourage cycling? Just look at our failing bike share schemes for proof. As for kids wearing a helmet, I don't agree that cycling is so unsafe anyone should be forced to wear helmets. The truth is that if I had a choice, given I cycle as transport and do not race or the like, I would not own a helmet. If I had a young child I would talk to them about whether they should wear a helmet but I would not enforce wearing of helmets (other parents may think differently, that is their right, I'm just saying what I would do - for what it is worth my daughter is now 18, rarely rides her bike, but never wears a helmet when she does and I'm not going to enforce what I consider a silly law). I had the same argument with my sister in law recently, she was all for helmet laws because of her perception that cycling is so dangerous. It just isn't. When I pointed out that half of all head injuries in Australia are suffered by occupants of cars yet they don't have to wear helmets it made no difference. The helmet laws give off a very distorted impression of how dangerous cycling is. There are a lot of us here who remember growing up without helmet laws, back in the days when cars handled worse and had 4 wheel drum brakes. The number of fatalities on the roads has dropped a lot since then but there has been no drop which can be correlated with the helmet laws, cycling deaths have trended with other road deaths.

When a bicycle has the same acceleration and momentum of a car then I'll accept comparisons between seat belt laws and lumps of foam on cyclists' heads. When bicycle helmets are mandated to be the same as motorcycle helmets then I'll accept comparisons between cycling and motorbike helmets. Otherwise you are not comparing like with like.

DS

[Percrime]

I,m not sure about this but I think that wearing a motorcycle helmet on a bicycle would actually be illegal

[Xplora]

I,m not sure about this but I think that wearing a motorcycle helmet on a bicycle would actually be illegal

That would definitely ruin your aero tuck

[outnabike]

WOW! I did not realise that the push to get mandatory helmet laws introduced began so early - the RACS lobbying parliament in 1978

The RACS claimed in 1978 that cyclists should wear helmets, but provided no evidence of efficacy. Dr Trinca said:

“We could perhaps worry a little less about and take a little less time in proving what is precisely right according to all standards … As doctors we are impatient. We cannot wait for 2 or 3 years” evaluation.”

Hi il padrone,I have never seen that ste before but various clips from it.
You started with a WOW! , And I can see why, we have a video of a bloke talking about expanding the Irish bike share to 5000 bikes from 450. His method of promoting his scheme is using Melbourne's failed bike share as an example of why not to promote helmets. Head injuries have not been an issue and folk can wear a helmet if they want.

One wonders what cycling clubs in Holland would make of the thought to make helmets compulsory. Videos of the duchies all getting around with out Lycra in there daily lives is interesting too.

I found the bit about "Headway" sponsoring the scientific data in Australia interesting, in that I use one of their early helmets and it has that label. It is excellent for screwing cameras to, and you can play footy with it without damaging it. The foam is non-crushable and definitely drop proof. It should last another 30 years or so. It is also fairly heavy which can make the back of the neck ache on long trips. I keep it for sentimental purposes to show others what was foisted on the unsuspecting public as a safety item.
If I ever get booked with it on, I will ask the governing bodies to supply me a new authorised replacement. I mean early model cars are still on the road and they would not pass safety tests like modern cars would they?
I don't see any thing wrong with people making their own decision, and having the right to wear helmets at their own discretion. Just my opinion though.

[DavidS]

Nice video here: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxCopenhagen-Mikael-Colville

Let's stop discouraging cycling, let's fight against the notion that cycling is so dangerous we need legislation to force us to wear a helmet, MHLs have not made cycling safer and should be repealed.

Just had to add this quote from Danish urban planner Mikael Colville-Andersen:

You are the fattest country in the world, you should be encouraging cycling, not convincing people it's dangerous.

DS