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 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: 18415
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

by BNA » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:30 pm

BNA
 

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.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6090
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: 4856
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.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6090
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: 1267
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: 4856
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: 1328
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: 4856
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 am

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby wilddemon » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:12 am

human909 wrote:
wilddemon wrote:
Xplora wrote: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:


This is exactly what irks me. I know what your position is, you have clearly illustrated it. But where is the intelligent debate? Making assumptions about what is right and wrong, turning facts this way and that to suit oneself, really, what is the point? I agree: It is simply ridiculous to adopt a position that 95% of the planet disagrees with, and assume it is the higher ground. Why not base the debate on something more meaningful? You may think you are fighting the battle of wits but to me it comes across more as battle of the f-wits. I'm perfectly willing to be swayed by someone's excellent argument to repeal MHL and I would be right on board with the anti MHL. Isn't this the point? I'm not going to mindlessly go round in circles maintaining that I am right and if you disagree with me you are wrong. I can argue on the side of the road with some cyclist hater and get the same empty satisfaction.

Apologies to those members who have brought up some excellent points and offered meaningful debate, I'm not referring to you.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:15 am

^^^
Yes, this is the pattern. It is fair and reasonable to evaluate a proposition by taking it to the natural conclusion. In this case, the rationale behind the helmet can be extended to other body parts, other activities, and other parts of the world. Hitting your head isn't the only way to destroy your life on a bike. A thorough testing of the philosophy around the helmet, and the helmet law, is the only legal and calm way to remove it in the initial stages.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6090
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby sogood » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:59 am

Off TEDx.

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: 16929
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

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

Postby diggler » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:24 am

http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists ... 2duga.html

Cyclists without helmets 'likely to be risk takers'


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists ... z2Jwbrf8qi

CYCLISTS who do not wear helmets are more likely to ride in ways that put them at risk, according to a study of more than 6700 bike riders who collided with motor vehicles.
The authors of the study say the evidence demonstrates the value of compulsory helmet laws, which some cyclists and researchers want repealed to try and increase the popularity of cycling.
The evidence says helmets work: they minimise the risk of injury.

Academics at the University of NSW's Transport and Road Safety Research Group and its School of Mathematics and Statistics looked at the relationship between the severity of cycling injuries on NSW roads and whether the bike rider was wearing a helmet.
The results, published on Monday in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, show that cyclists not wearing a helmet were almost four times as likely to sustain a head injury compared to those with head protection.
Advertisement
In part, this was because cyclists who were not wearing a helmet were more likely to engage in other behaviour that led to accidents: they were more likely to disobey traffic rules and more likely to be riding while drunk.
''Having an opinion is one thing, but if you are going to make policies, such as repealing mandatory helmet laws, you have to look at evidence,'' said a co-author of the study, Jake Olivier.
''The evidence says helmets work: they minimise the risk of injury,'' Dr Olivier said.
The study looked at 6745 cyclists involved in collisions with motor vehicles between 2001 and 2009. It linked information from hospital admissions to police reports on the incidents.
''As the severity of the injury increased the benefit of wearing a helmet increased, which is very hard to ignore I think,'' Dr Olivier said.
Results showed that cyclists without helmets were more than 3.9 times as likely to sustain a head injury to those with helmets. Helmets reduced the risk of moderate head injury by 49 per cent, of serious head injury by 62 per cent, and of severe head injury by 74 per cent.
The usefulness of compulsory helmet laws is a controversial issue among cyclists, and has become a topic of academic debate, with two camps broadly represented by researchers at UNSW and Sydney University.
Chris Rissel, from Sydney University's school of public health, has argued compulsory helmet laws discourage cycling, denying the public the health benefit from a more active lifestyle.
Dr Olivier's co-author, Raphael Grzebieta, said the suggestion there was a benefit in repealing mandatory helmet laws was absurd.
Asked why cyclists without helmets appeared to take other risks, Dr Olivier said that while his study did not address this question, the answer might be: ''Someone who is willing to disobey the law by not wearing a helmet might be more willing to disobey other laws.''


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists ... z2JwbnFcLh
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

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

Postby diggler » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:27 am

I have to admit to being a complete hypocrite. I always wear a helmet when cycling, but can't stand wearing one when I am playing cricket. I empathise with all the anti helmet people on this one. A cricket helmet is heavy and uncomfortable, and restricts vision. I would be p'd off if helmets were compulsory in cricket.
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

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

Postby human909 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:16 am

diggler wrote:Cyclists without helmets 'likely to be risk takers'


The biggest risk of not wearing a helmet is getting a fine from the police! :roll: In a country where NOT wearing a helmet is illegal one would expect this to be the case. Even ignoring injuries, those not wearing helmets is taking a risk of a fine. This is another example of POOR 'RESEARCH' coming to conclusions that the authors and authorities want it to. Their conclusion that this finding supports MHL is simply false logic

My observations. I'm currently skiing in a place where the majority wear helmets. If anything those who wear helmets are more likely to take risks. In rock climbing I've observed few correlations. In The Netherlands, cyclists who where helmets are much bigger risk takers.
human909
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby twizzle » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:18 am

human909 wrote:
diggler wrote:Cyclists without helmets 'likely to be risk takers'

The biggest risk of not wearing a helmet is getting a fine from the police!


I looked, but I couldn't find that in the study.

"Belief based" vs "Evidence based" mean anything to you?
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

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

Postby human909 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:22 am

twizzle wrote:I looked, but I couldn't find that in the study.

"Belief based" vs "Evidence based" mean anything to you?

I wouldn't be turning to that study for many conclusions that are evidence based twizzle. Surely if you were being honest to yourself you would recognise the flawed conclusions?

But no, you seem intent on point scoring pettiness rather than addressing the issue. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby find_bruce » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:03 am

diggler wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists-without-helmets-likely-to-be-risk-takers-20130204-2duga.html

Cyclists without helmets 'likely to be risk takers'

It seems the confusion of correlation and causation is alive and well.

Just to pick the cycling whilst drunk line - it has been a couple of years since I had to look at the research, but as best I can recall there is plenty of evidence that being drunk is a major cause of risk taking behaviour, whether on a bicycle or otherwise - impaired judgement being one of the effects of alcohol consumption. I am struggling to see how not wearing a helmet causes you to be drunk.

I am all in favour of evidence based decision making, but I don't see how the reported aspects of this study can contribute.
Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 3733
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:12 am

SMH wrote:Dr Olivier's co-author, Raphael Grzebieta, said the suggestion there was a benefit in repealing mandatory helmet laws was absurd.
Asked why cyclists without helmets appeared to take other risks, Dr Olivier said that while his study did not address this question, the answer might be: ''Someone who is willing to disobey the law by not wearing a helmet might be more willing to disobey other laws.''

A basic flaw in logic there. Remove the MHL and the non-helmet-wearers will not be risk-takers, just ordinary folks. Seeing as the "risk takers" are not wearing helmets now with the MHL, and may break other road rules, the abolition of the MHL would make little difference to their risk of injury.

I took a fall on the weekend. Hit my head. Was unconscious for 1-2 minutes. The brand new helmet is busted :(

Yes it saved me from possibly more severe injuries. I have a broken collar-bone and possible cracked ribs. Still do not support MHL. I choose to wear a helmet. I am a high mileage rider (10-12k per year) and the fall happened while descending a gravel road out of the bush into Apollo Bay - not your garden variety 'ride to the shops'. I guess it can be seen as greater risk-taking, descending a gravel road at 30kmh. I accept that risk and deal with it. Abolishing the MHL will not change that.
Last edited by il padrone on Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:20 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: 18415
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby jcjordan » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:12 am

The most interesting thing about this argument has been the correlation with the gun debating the US in terms of it's style and methodology.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:18 am

sogood wrote:Off TEDx.



Oh the irony :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hysterical if it weren't so sad.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18415
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby AndyTheMan » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:00 am

Not that we need anything to stir debate on the Mandatory Helmet Law.....

But many may have seen this article in todays newspapers;

http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists-without-helmets-likely-to-be-risk-takers-20130204-2duga.html

The author of the research paper appears to be a long time supporter of MHL, he is essentially a statistician and researcher (not sure if he is also a cyclist).

Other articles by the same author:

http://theconversation.edu.au/dont-blame-mandatory-helmets-for-cyclist-deaths-in-new-zealand-5379

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/bike-helmet-critics-not-using-their-heads-20121003-26yvc.html

From my point of view, if you aren't a regular cyclist (and depending on what type of cyclist you are) then I think the MHL is stupid.

I mainly ride a road bike, and I would always wear my noggin-protector on my current bike as I spend most time on the road mixiung it with idiots in cars.

However, on a recent trip to melbourne I used the melbourne bike share, and found it rediculous that I would be expected to wear a helmet to go 2km on a cycle path, with no cars, at probably 10km/h....

The problem with MHL is that it assumes all cycle trips are the same, when they aren't.

It would be like having mandatory enclosed leather workboot legislation - thats all fine and dandy if you are on a building site, or working outdoors, or even bushwalking. but wouldn't it become a silly law if you are just wandering across the road to the beach, or even taking the bins out.....
AndyTheMan
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit