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 Howzat » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:56 am

Mulger bill wrote:Wot? Like the binge drinkers? The smokers? The rock fishermen? The moto riders in shorts and thongs?

Why some and not others? Why do other, commonly not as well off as ours countries not have a problem with this?

Where do we draw the line?


Yes, exactly like that. Those guys are also transferring costs of their "personal" choices onto everyone else.

That is why we draw lines. We do it all the time. Motorcyclists have to wear a heavy helmet and hold a license. Smoking is banned in workplaces, and discouraged generally. Rock fishing is banned in some spots, usually following a drowning.

This is not always governmental line-drawing; I'm pretty sure my wife would kill me if I decided to take up smoking. Why? Because my "personal choice" would impose a cost on her.

This stuff is always up for discussion, but it's entirely possible to set expectations, standards, or laws regarding "personal" choices that actually affect other people in your family, community, or country.
Last edited by Howzat on Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

by BNA » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:00 am

BNA
 

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

Postby il padrone » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:00 am

Image
Higher health costs in helmet-avoiding Netherlands, or helmet-addicted USA ???

Road Safety Annual Report 2011
Australia compared to non-helmet country cyclist fatalities

2000 to 2010

Australia 31 to 38 = +23%

Austria 62 to 32 = -48.4%
Belgium (2000-2009) 134 to 88 = -34%
Denmark 58 to 26 = -55%
France 273 to 147 = -46.2%
Germany 659 to 381 = -42%
Greece 22 to 23 = +5%
Hungary 182 to 92 = -49%
Ireland 10 to 5 = -70%
Italy 401 to 263 = -34%
Japan 1,273 to 929 = -27%
Korea 2,792 to 1,228 = -56%
The Netherlands 233 to 162 = -30%
Norway 13 to 5 = -62%
Poland 692 to 280 = -60%
Portugal 62 to 33 = -47%
Switzerland 48 to 34 = -29%
United Kingdom 131 to 111 = -15%


Consistent with broader averages, the OECD annual snapshot figures show Australia's cyclist fatality rate worsened over the decade from 2000 to 2010 whereas almost all non-helmet law countries enjoyed significant improvements.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html



The number 1 factor in reducing cyclist road deaths/injuries, and associated health costs, is getting more people riding bikes, on the roads. Living in a world of misplaced fear does no-one any good.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19658
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Howzat » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:15 am

Biffidus wrote:
Howzat wrote:So explain why we all should pay more because someone else makes a choice to not take personal responsibility?

The suggestion through most of this thread is that society wouldn't pay more if a MHL was repealed as helmets discourage cycling and don't work as advertised:
  • MHL discourages cycling, discourages exercise and the associated health benefits which in turn increases health costs to society due to obesity.
  • MHL discourages cycling, encourages driving which increases pollution and the cost of road maintenance.
  • The evidence that helmets actually reduce typical cyclist head injuries is largely anecdotal.
  • Helmets may actually worsen the injuries from certain types of head impact.


That's the general line argument. To get MHLs repealed, all you have to substantiate these points.

Citing these as opinion won't change the laws. Cherry-picking stats is also unconvincing.

Sydney researchers Voukelatos and Rissel published a study in 2010 showing that helmet laws had not reduced injury rates. That's the kind of thing that will get change effected. Until their paper was formally retracted by the Australasian College of Road Safety, citing persistent "data errors", aka cherry-picking the stats. That's career-damaging stuff for an academic, and a hit under the waterline for anyone hoping for a repeal of MHLs.

It may indicate that substantiating anti-MHL points, in a statistically sound way, will be harder than might be hoped.
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

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

Postby il padrone » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:24 am

Howzat wrote:That's the general line argument. To get MHLs repealed, all you have to substantiate these points.

What? Substantiated with data.

Like they did to bring in this iniquitous law, where there were no data studies done on the likely impacts upon cyclists ?? Tosh! Just get rid of the law thanks. The only data you need is the experience of every other country around the world that do not mandate helmets.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19658
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 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:08 pm

il padrone wrote:
Howzat wrote:That's the general line argument. To get MHLs repealed, all you have to substantiate these points.

What? Substantiated with data.

Like they did to bring in this iniquitous law, where there were no data studies done on the likely impacts upon cyclists ?? Tosh! Just get rid of the law thanks. The only data you need is the experience of every other country around the world that do not mandate helmets.


Thanks Pete, saved me a bit of typing. :D
...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: 26451
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby winstonw » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:17 pm

il padrone wrote:The only data you need is the experience of every other country around the world that do not mandate helmets.


not to mention their driving culture and infrastructure, because that couldn't have any bearing on cycling injury rate.
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:28 pm

So show us some US stats shoing how badly they need lid laws then...
...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: 26451
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby sogood » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:30 pm

218 pages and still going strong?

Biffidus wrote:[*]The evidence that helmets actually reduce typical cyclist head injuries is largely anecdotal.

This will never come out as there's no data to prove it any better. Just think of how many smashed helmets that have been reported on this forum, barely a tiny percentage point of those incidents were recorded for researchers. Those who never reached the hospital emergency department would just be vanishing points.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

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

Postby high_tea » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:34 pm

Mulger bill wrote:So show us some US stats shoing how badly they need lid laws then...


Well, in terms of changing the status quo in the US, that's a fair enough request. I don't think anyone's arguing for that, though.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby DavidS » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:11 pm

Howzat wrote:
il padrone wrote: two of us suggested helmet use should be left to personal choice


Perceptions of danger aside, I'll pick up on this "personal choice" note.

Skipping the helmet can't be a purely personal choice - not as long others are picking up the bill for for health care, rehabilitation, compo, ambulance services, legal costs, hospitals, funerals, counsellors, loss of income, and everything that may accompany a serious accident. And those services are part of the country, communities, and families we've built.

So what others may find objectionable about the "personal choice" to ride without a lid is that that choice raises net costs, in the aggregate, for everyone else.

We don't wrap everyone in bubble wrap, but we do, as a country, expect people to wear a helmet when riding a bike. Why? We think this is a modest element of personal responsibility to reduce risk and control costs for everyone else.

So explain why we all should pay more because someone else makes a choice to not take personal responsibility?


2 main points:

1) we have a universal medical system. This is far more efficient, and fair, than a system where blame is apportioned. If you want to go down that road then expect your medicare levy to rise. The other point about a universal system is that it is specifically designed to be universal reflecting a belief that health care should be a given in a wealthy and civilised society.

2) You, and all the other MHL advocates, have failed dismally to make any case whatsoever that forcing all cyclists to wear helmets reduces the bill for health care. You can just throw that argument away until you have some proof.

What astounds me is that, while the road toll continues to fall, and while the rate of cycling fell after MHLs and is still recovering, our fatality rate has actually gone up (see il Padrone's post) since 2000. It's going down elsewhere, yet it goes up here, and we're the ones with MHLs. The figures are damning to say the least. There is evidence that the number of cyclists on the road contributes to safety. There is evidence that MHLs discourage cycling. And if you put the two together we get rising fatality rates in Australia where we have MHLs. I suppose given the evidence this comes as no surprise. The surprise is that anyone is still left defending this ridiculous law.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby wilddemon » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:01 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
Howzat wrote:So explain why we all should pay more because someone else makes a choice to not take personal responsibility?


Wot? Like the binge drinkers? The smokers? The rock fishermen? The moto riders in shorts and thongs?

Why some and not others? Why do other, commonly not as well off as ours countries not have a problem with this?

Where do we draw the line?


Alcohol and tobacco, and fuel, have special taxes, perhaps for this purpose? Regardless, they have the effect of deterring use in products almost immune to normal economic (supply, demand, price) rules due to the fact they are freaking massive. I'm not aware of rock fishing or motorbiking with thongs and singlet, but certainly motorcyclists must wear a helmet, reducing risk of brain damage rendering the rider a vegetable and probably wholly dependent on state funded care. Yeah road rash hurts but rarely results in lifetime care required.

If you've ever been to Europe you'll know that a lot of those countries are set up to cater for cyclists and attitudes towards cyclists and cycling are totally different too. Yeah China isn't exactly aiming development at cyclists but there's so many cyclists that it reduces risk within the swarm. Comparing the safety in car focused USA or Australia to these countries is a bit like comparing apples and pears in my opinion.

Where do we draw the line? That's a bit nonsensical to me; shouldn't each risk be evaluated on a case by case basis? Maybe I don't understand the question?

Edit: no disrespect intended, I'm learning a few things from the anti MHLs as I am the pro. Cheers
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby high_tea » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:39 pm

wilddemon wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:
Howzat wrote:So explain why we all should pay more because someone else makes a choice to not take personal responsibility?


Wot? Like the binge drinkers? The smokers? The rock fishermen? The moto riders in shorts and thongs?

Why some and not others? Why do other, commonly not as well off as ours countries not have a problem with this?

Where do we draw the line?


Alcohol and tobacco, and fuel, have special taxes, perhaps for this purpose? Regardless, they have the effect of deterring use in products almost immune to normal economic (supply, demand, price) rules due to the fact they are freaking massive. I'm not aware of rock fishing or motorbiking with thongs and singlet, but certainly motorcyclists must wear a helmet, reducing risk of brain damage rendering the rider a vegetable and probably wholly dependent on state funded care. Yeah road rash hurts but rarely results in lifetime care required.

If you've ever been to Europe you'll know that a lot of those countries are set up to cater for cyclists and attitudes towards cyclists and cycling are totally different too. Yeah China isn't exactly aiming development at cyclists but there's so many cyclists that it reduces risk within the swarm. Comparing the safety in car focused USA or Australia to these countries is a bit like comparing apples and pears in my opinion.

Where do we draw the line? That's a bit nonsensical to me; shouldn't each risk be evaluated on a case by case basis? Maybe I don't understand the question?

Edit: no disrespect intended, I'm learning a few things from the anti MHLs as I am the pro. Cheers


Nah, the excise on fuel, alcohol and tobacco is a revenue-raising exercise, pure and simple. Historically, the licensing has had revenue-raising behind it to a pretty significant extent too. Advertising restrictions are another matter, natch, but that's a relatively recent thing. Taxes to improve public health always strike me as a bit iffy - the government wants to stop people doing whatever, only they don't really want them to stop because they need the money.

MHLs are in a different category, in that they must stand or fall on their merits as a public health policy.

You appear to be new to this thread. "Where do we draw the line" is often (but not invariably) used to run the following argument:

Some hypothetical law (life jackets at the beach, to name but one example) would save more lives than MHLs have, or will. This law hasn't been enacted, therefore MHLs should be repealed forthwith. I think it works just as well as an argument in favour of enacting some more laws. Disclaimer: I don't think it's a good argument either way.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby wilddemon » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:36 am

high_tea wrote:
wilddemon wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:Wot? Like the binge drinkers? The smokers? The rock fishermen? The moto riders in shorts and thongs?

Why some and not others? Why do other, commonly not as well off as ours countries not have a problem with this?

Where do we draw the line?


Alcohol and tobacco, and fuel, have special taxes, perhaps for this purpose? Regardless, they have the effect of deterring use in products almost immune to normal economic (supply, demand, price) rules due to the fact they are freaking massive. I'm not aware of rock fishing or motorbiking with thongs and singlet, but certainly motorcyclists must wear a helmet, reducing risk of brain damage rendering the rider a vegetable and probably wholly dependent on state funded care. Yeah road rash hurts but rarely results in lifetime care required.

If you've ever been to Europe you'll know that a lot of those countries are set up to cater for cyclists and attitudes towards cyclists and cycling are totally different too. Yeah China isn't exactly aiming development at cyclists but there's so many cyclists that it reduces risk within the swarm. Comparing the safety in car focused USA or Australia to these countries is a bit like comparing apples and pears in my opinion.

Where do we draw the line? That's a bit nonsensical to me; shouldn't each risk be evaluated on a case by case basis? Maybe I don't understand the question?

Edit: no disrespect intended, I'm learning a few things from the anti MHLs as I am the pro. Cheers


Nah, the excise on fuel, alcohol and tobacco is a revenue-raising exercise, pure and simple. Historically, the licensing has had revenue-raising behind it to a pretty significant extent too. Advertising restrictions are another matter, natch, but that's a relatively recent thing. Taxes to improve public health always strike me as a bit iffy - the government wants to stop people doing whatever, only they don't really want them to stop because they need the money.

MHLs are in a different category, in that they must stand or fall on their merits as a public health policy.

You appear to be new to this thread. "Where do we draw the line" is often (but not invariably) used to run the following argument:

Some hypothetical law (life jackets at the beach, to name but one example) would save more lives than MHLs have, or will. This law hasn't been enacted, therefore MHLs should be repealed forthwith. I think it works just as well as an argument in favour of enacting some more laws. Disclaimer: I don't think it's a good argument either way.


Excise! yes that's the one. True, the taxed money goes into a pool, not into offsetting the cost of those people using tobacco or alcohol but it does offset the burden on everyone else. Excise accounts for over 50% of the cost of cigarettes. Agree, govt want people to stop smoking but also need the money. People keep stuffing cigarettes in their face which both contributes to the govt pool of cash, and deteriorate it. Howzat made the point that people that dont wear helmets are burdening others with costs of their injury, but not contributing to that cost. Mulger Bill suggested that smokers and drinkers make damage inflicting decisions and don't contribute to the financial burden inflicted on society. I was refuting that statement.

Okay, Im getting it now about the "drawing the line". It's in regard to number of lives saved (or lost)? Or maybe lives per capita people enjoying that activity? or lives per capita hours? Agree not a good argument either way. PFDs (personal flotation devices) may be more difficult to police, or cost more, or maybe even the public have greater outrage at having to wear them at the beach and the government has to spend more money on lifesaver patrols to reduce fatalities (which is their job). Interestingly I've heard that PFDs will not only have to be carried in a boat but worn as well (not sure if just outside or also inside of the ocean). I've also noticed a few billboards popping up to soften the public stance over the intro.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby Mulger bill » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:05 am

wilddemon wrote:...and the government has to spend more money on lifesaver patrols to reduce fatalities (which is their job).

And the difference between lifesaver patrols in this context and a universal healthcare system would be?
...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: 26451
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby il padrone » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:10 pm

high_tea wrote:Nah, the excise on fuel, alcohol and tobacco is a revenue-raising exercise, pure and simple.

The results of this tax policy, in conjunction with other anti-smoking health policies, indicates that this alleged objective is the classic furphy, frequently raised by the anti-regulation chatterers as the government conspiracy.

high_tea wrote:MHLs are in a different category, in that they must stand or fall on their merits as a public health policy.

Well, that's not happening. There is precious little real effort by our legislators to monitor the effectiveness of the MHL, beyond "are there less cyclists dying?" This doesn't measure the effect of the law upon cycling safety at all.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19658
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Xplora » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:30 pm

Sin taxes aka the various excises, are economically stable (inelastic demand - people will buy it regardless of the price) and that's why they chug along. They are part of the overall tax take. It's rather pointless trying to judge the system any other way.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6806
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 21, 2013 1:52 pm

Howzat wrote:So explain why we all should pay more because someone else makes a choice to not take personal responsibility?

Excuse me!?

You are operating on an assumption that no wearing a helmet is "a choice to not take personal responsibility". THIS IS ABSURD.

Are you suggesting 99% of the dutch are not taking personal responsibility? Or a you suggesting that road cyclists wearing helmets are being safer than a Dutch commuter not wearing a helmet? You attitude already shows an absurd bias that isn't supported by objective facts.
human909
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:25 pm

human909 wrote:THIS IS ABSURD.

This is definitely a KEY aspect to the Anti MHL position. It is simply ridiculous to adopt a position that 95% of the planet disagrees with, and assume it is the higher ground.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6806
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby lturner » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:45 pm

Howzat wrote:Perceptions of danger aside, I'll pick up on this "personal choice" note.

Skipping the helmet can't be a purely personal choice - not as long others are picking up the bill for for health care, rehabilitation, compo, ambulance services, legal costs, hospitals, funerals, counsellors, loss of income, and everything that may accompany a serious accident. And those services are part of the country, communities, and families we've built.

So what others may find objectionable about the "personal choice" to ride without a lid is that that choice raises net costs, in the aggregate, for everyone else.

We don't wrap everyone in bubble wrap, but we do, as a country, expect people to wear a helmet when riding a bike. Why? We think this is a modest element of personal responsibility to reduce risk and control costs for everyone else.

So explain why we all should pay more because someone else makes a choice to not take personal responsibility?


Why stop there? Helmets at best might prevent between 0-15% of cycling injuries. Why not apply your logic to anyone who rides a bike. That is a choice they make which might lead to an injury.

Someone who doesn't just dislike people cycling without helmets but actually dislikes people cycling altogether could apply your logic to say, "why should I pay for your choice to ride a bike and possibly get injured".

Why should I pay for the injuries of someone who goes out bunch riding at high speed, clips the wheel of the bike in front and injures themselves? Or wears clip-in pedals and falls over and injures themself because they can't put their foot down to stop themselves. Another choice. Skinny tyres, lightweight bikes, the list goes on.

You define compulsory helmets as a "modest element of personal responsibility" simply because it suits your personal preference to wear a helmet, but in fact it is completely arbitrary.

I have no problem with people riding in any way they please even if it does entail some risk - they are best placed to determine their own safety. I do have a problem with cyclists who want me to wear a helmet because they have concluded that it's the best way to mitigate their risk of injury - even though for some it's virtually the only tiny concession they make to safety.
lturner
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am

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

Postby wilddemon » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:53 pm

Xplora wrote:
human909 wrote:THIS IS ABSURD.

This is definitely a KEY aspect to the Anti MHL position. It is simply ridiculous to adopt a position that 95% of the planet disagrees with, and assume it is the higher ground.


+1

And why the constant comparison to The Netherlands? If we had their infrastructure as well as their attitudes then I would understand but we don't. Attitudes in some euro countries IMO comes across as live and let live. Here its not uncommon for people to have the mirror "tall poppy syndrome".
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby high_tea » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:15 pm

Xplora wrote:
human909 wrote:THIS IS ABSURD.

This is definitely a KEY aspect to the Anti MHL position. It is simply ridiculous to adopt a position that 95% of the planet disagrees with, and assume it is the higher ground.


It's also ridiculous to denigrate a position simply because it's unpopular. Novel isn't necessarily good or bad.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby human909 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:33 pm

high_tea wrote:Novel isn't necessarily good or bad.


True. Australia and New Zealand lead the a large part of the world on woman's suffrage. At the time it was novel and it spread to other countries.

Australia and New Zealand tried to lead the world on mandatory helmet laws. Fortunately for the rest of the world's cyclists most authorities overseas have seen that this is not the best policy for freedom of choice and cycling safely. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby DavidS » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:42 pm

lturner wrote:
Howzat wrote:Perceptions of danger aside, I'll pick up on this "personal choice" note.

Skipping the helmet can't be a purely personal choice - not as long others are picking up the bill for for health care, rehabilitation, compo, ambulance services, legal costs, hospitals, funerals, counsellors, loss of income, and everything that may accompany a serious accident. And those services are part of the country, communities, and families we've built.

So what others may find objectionable about the "personal choice" to ride without a lid is that that choice raises net costs, in the aggregate, for everyone else.

We don't wrap everyone in bubble wrap, but we do, as a country, expect people to wear a helmet when riding a bike. Why? We think this is a modest element of personal responsibility to reduce risk and control costs for everyone else.

So explain why we all should pay more because someone else makes a choice to not take personal responsibility?


Why stop there? Helmets at best might prevent between 0-15% of cycling injuries. Why not apply your logic to anyone who rides a bike. That is a choice they make which might lead to an injury.

Someone who doesn't just dislike people cycling without helmets but actually dislikes people cycling altogether could apply your logic to say, "why should I pay for your choice to ride a bike and possibly get injured".

Why should I pay for the injuries of someone who goes out bunch riding at high speed, clips the wheel of the bike in front and injures themselves? Or wears clip-in pedals and falls over and injures themself because they can't put their foot down to stop themselves. Another choice. Skinny tyres, lightweight bikes, the list goes on.

You define compulsory helmets as a "modest element of personal responsibility" simply because it suits your personal preference to wear a helmet, but in fact it is completely arbitrary.

I have no problem with people riding in any way they please even if it does entail some risk - they are best placed to determine their own safety. I do have a problem with cyclists who want me to wear a helmet because they have concluded that it's the best way to mitigate their risk of injury - even though for some it's virtually the only tiny concession they make to safety.


Yep, I reckon we should have a special tax on those who ride around on the fast and dangerous carbon fibre bikes with skinny tyres. Then the bunch riders, tax them extra too. Either that or mandated body armour for any fast bike and compulsory motorbike helmets for those who are on a bike capable of averaging over 35KMh, damned dangerous those things. I don't want my taxes to go to fix up those idiots who injure themselves on those dangerous bikes.

Where does it end? I'll tell you, it ends at the beginning. Cycling is safe and beneficial to your health. It requires no special mandated safety equipment because it just isn't that dangerous. Let's end this now and repeal the MHLs. For those who favour MHLs, why do you not lobby for more protective clothing on bikes, lycra won't do you any good if you come off, why are you not arguing for mandated protective clothing? For that matter, why aren't you lobbying for stricter helmet laws, the flimsy foam things we're forced to wear now really aren't much use in a serious accident, you should be out there lobbying for higher standards for mandated helmets. Otherwise your argument is just posturing. As a start you should at least be lobbying for hard shell helmets, why are you not doing this? Are you serious or do you support the way the governments around Australia have been able to wash their hands of any cycling safety issue by just pointing to MHLs and saying "we did our bit, no more for us to do, you don't need bike lanes or changes to motorists' behaviour, you are all wearing helmets, no problem"?

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1434
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby wilddemon » Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:42 am

DavidS wrote:
lturner wrote:Why stop there? Helmets at best might prevent between 0-15% of cycling injuries. Why not apply your logic to anyone who rides a bike. That is a choice they make which might lead to an injury.

Someone who doesn't just dislike people cycling without helmets but actually dislikes people cycling altogether could apply your logic to say, "why should I pay for your choice to ride a bike and possibly get injured".

Why should I pay for the injuries of someone who goes out bunch riding at high speed, clips the wheel of the bike in front and injures themselves? Or wears clip-in pedals and falls over and injures themself because they can't put their foot down to stop themselves. Another choice. Skinny tyres, lightweight bikes, the list goes on.

You define compulsory helmets as a "modest element of personal responsibility" simply because it suits your personal preference to wear a helmet, but in fact it is completely arbitrary.

I have no problem with people riding in any way they please even if it does entail some risk - they are best placed to determine their own safety. I do have a problem with cyclists who want me to wear a helmet because they have concluded that it's the best way to mitigate their risk of injury - even though for some it's virtually the only tiny concession they make to safety.


Yep, I reckon we should have a special tax on those who ride around on the fast and dangerous carbon fibre bikes with skinny tyres. Then the bunch riders, tax them extra too. Either that or mandated body armour for any fast bike and compulsory motorbike helmets for those who are on a bike capable of averaging over 35KMh, damned dangerous those things. I don't want my taxes to go to fix up those idiots who injure themselves on those dangerous bikes.

Where does it end? I'll tell you, it ends at the beginning. Cycling is safe and beneficial to your health. It requires no special mandated safety equipment because it just isn't that dangerous. Let's end this now and repeal the MHLs. For those who favour MHLs, why do you not lobby for more protective clothing on bikes, lycra won't do you any good if you come off, why are you not arguing for mandated protective clothing? For that matter, why aren't you lobbying for stricter helmet laws, the flimsy foam things we're forced to wear now really aren't much use in a serious accident, you should be out there lobbying for higher standards for mandated helmets. Otherwise your argument is just posturing. As a start you should at least be lobbying for hard shell helmets, why are you not doing this? Are you serious or do you support the way the governments around Australia have been able to wash their hands of any cycling safety issue by just pointing to MHLs and saying "we did our bit, no more for us to do, you don't need bike lanes or changes to motorists' behaviour, you are all wearing helmets, no problem"?

DS


Yes I am fairly new to the thread so I'm not sure if this is considered usual. This seems to be less about debate and more about childish, sarcastic gainsaying. Any idiot can point holes in your arguments but who has the time, energy and inclination? I'm out.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby human909 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:15 am

wilddemon wrote:
Xplora wrote:
human909 wrote:THIS IS ABSURD.

This is definitely a KEY aspect to the Anti MHL position. It is simply ridiculous to adopt a position that 95% of the planet disagrees with, and assume it is the higher ground.


+1

Errrrr.... you do realise that you gave a "+1' to an position that was AGAINST MHL!? :lol:
human909
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: human909



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