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 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:46 pm

wilddemon wrote:^^^ Did you read the same article that I did? The article that I read said that two identities, The Conversation and Sydney Morning Herald represented the paper with "Crash data shows cyclists with no helmets more likely to ride drunk" and "Cyclists without helmets ‘likely to be risk-takers'" respectively.

Yes, nothing surprising about that. To ride without a helmet in Australia you would be a risk-taker by definition. You need to be prepared to stand out and go against not only the law, but also strongly accepted societal opinion.

wilddemon wrote:The four UNSW researchers reported results based on statistical research and concluded that helmet use decreased the chance of head injury.

And again, no rocket science in that. I've been aware of this ever since I bought the old MSR hard-shell, put it on and deliberately crashed my head hard on the door-jam, to the shrieks of my mother and sister.

wilddemon wrote:They also made conclusions regarding risk: "where non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, while less likely to cycle in risky areas. While the net result was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes, this difference was small."

So four experts in their field write a paper, and you're no expert, but you are going to write off the paper as "somewhat inconclusive"

I think sometimes we can get terribly bedazzled by the words of "experts" and "research", and miss the nose in front of our face. I did think that one of the last statements made in the Crikey blog by Alan Davies was relevant and quite accurate in my view:

Alan Davies wrote:I interpret the findings as reinforcing the good sense of wearing a helmet when cycling, especially on roads.

I would of course be free to make that choice even if the helmet law were repealed. The question of whether or not helmets should continue to be mandatory must be considered in the context of other arguments, especially the claim that the law deters cycling.


Dismiss my own comments however you like but nothing I read in that article had me suddenly taking a new outlook on helmets. I use one, because I ride a lot. I still don't see the need for any MHL for every citizen. So you think different..... OK :| . No call for the slanging and aspersions.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18424
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

by BNA » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:22 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby DavidS » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:22 pm

I think the crucial difference is perception. In all but 2 countries in the world riding a bicycle without a helmet is seen as normal. Here, because the helmet laws have promoted the ridiculous notion that cycling is particularly dangerous, so dangerous we must be mandated by law to wear a protective helmet whenever we get on a bike, it is seen as risky behaviour.

What needs to change is this notion that somehow riding a bicycle without a helmet (as happens in over 170 countries in the world) is evidence of being a risk taker.

In fact, what this sort of article shows is just how effective MHLs have been in ingraining notions of extreme risk associated with cycling. I had a recent argument with someone where they talked about it being way too dangerous to let her kids ride without a helmet. Back when she was a kid it would have just been normal for kids to ride on the roads without helmets.

The perception of danger fostered by MHLs leads to the inference that cycling without a helmet is associated with risk takers. If we didn't have MHLs no-one would have even considered looking at whether non helmet wearing cyclists take more risks.

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 il padrone » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:35 pm

DavidS wrote:I think the crucial difference is perception. In all but 2 countries in the world riding a bicycle without a helmet is seen as normal. Here, because the helmet laws have promoted the ridiculous notion that cycling is particularly dangerous, so dangerous we must be mandated by law to wear a protective helmet whenever we get on a bike, it is seen as risky behaviour.

You are quite correct here.

But equally, in Australia the people who ride without a helmet will be those who are, for whatever reason, more likely to take risks - to ride a BMX bike over home-made ramps and walls, to ride the footpaths, to ignore the red lights at intersections or pedestrian crossings, to dart the wrong way along back streets or to suddenly cross from footpath across the "quiet" street. They actually are risk-takers and often do come unstuck.

But they are not wearing helmets. Has the MHL been effective with them then? Would it not be better to focus on education of cycling skills, the law and correct practices, of why this does matter? Also to educate drivers much more about the need to watch out for cyclists, the requirement to give all the same safe treatment on the roads. These are what has made the difference in the great European cycling countries, along with much work on infrastructure and law enforcement. But this all lands in our 'too hard' basket.

I am reminded of the key recommendations of the 1977 Geelong Bikeplan - the four 'E's - Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, and Engineering. Whatever has happened to them now ??
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18424
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 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:37 pm

Personally, methinks it's prolly reversed: Risk taking bike riders are less likely to wear hemlets.
Ahh statistics, the art of making numbers dance.
...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: 25806
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:40 pm

Haven't checked but are there any other countries that have this stupid MHL or have it but don't enforce it ?

Still my problem with it is choice.
Remove too much choices and people become inept at making decisions.

Ban smoking, far more people die from it and its a huge financial drain on the economy but hey, the govt tax it to the hilt and make glorious amounts of money from it so I guess it's ok ?
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:41 pm

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying MB. :wink:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18424
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:42 pm

DavidS wrote:I think the crucial difference is perception. In all but 2 countries in the world riding a bicycle without a helmet is seen as normal. Here, because the helmet laws have promoted the ridiculous notion that cycling is particularly dangerous, so dangerous we must be mandated by law to wear a protective helmet whenever we get on a bike, it is seen as risky behaviour.

My impression is that it was t'other way 'round. I got many a lecture on the dangerousness of cycling pre-MHL. I think perceived riskiness promoted MHLs rather than vice versa.

What needs to change is this notion that somehow riding a bicycle without a helmet (as happens in over 170 countries in the world) is evidence of being a risk taker.

In fact, what this sort of article shows is just how effective MHLs have been in ingraining notions of extreme risk associated with cycling. I had a recent argument with someone where they talked about it being way too dangerous to let her kids ride without a helmet. Back when she was a kid it would have just been normal for kids to ride on the roads without helmets.


The fact that It Was So In The Good Ole Days is a lousy criterion. Drink driving would likewise have been considered acceptable not so long ago.

The perception of danger fostered by MHLs leads to the inference that cycling without a helmet is associated with risk takers. If we didn't have MHLs no-one would have even considered looking at whether non helmet wearing cyclists take more risks.

DS


Disagree. Helmet efficacy - including considerations like risk compensation - is studied in non-MHL jurisdictions. QED.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:02 am

high_tea wrote:Disagree. Helmet efficacy - including considerations like risk compensation - is studied in non-MHL jurisdictions. QED.


And yet they still haven't followed the (self appointed) world leaders in cycling safety after how many years? Now why do you think that might be? Maybe it's because they WANT all cyclists to be killed off ASAP, thereby making the world a much better place. [/tic]
...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: 25806
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby human909 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:31 am

Running a statistical analysis to prove the obvious is not what I term ground breaking research. Nothing that they "found" is new. I'll highlight their conclusions:

**helmet use is sig-nificantly associated with reduced risk of head injury by up to 74%
**Helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists were statistically sig-nificantly different with regards to cycling behaviour, where non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, while less likely to cycle in risky areas.
**Most notably, limitation relating to confounding by unknown variables have been addressed with the use of police-reported crash data.

None of this is especially novel. I question their last statement, police reported crash data is by no means comprehensive. In fact it is likely that the reporting rates between non-helmet wearers and helmet is significant! But lets not let that get in the way of a ''good' study. :wink:

wilddemon wrote:To be honest, I had only heard word of the SMH and The Conversation interpretation of the paper. Good to see that someone has published a more thorough article regarding the paper.

How about we just go to the actual paper then....

The full conclusion:
5. Conclusions

This case–control study of 6745 cyclist casualties resulting from collisions with motor vehicles has indicated that helmet use is significantly associated with reduced risk of head injury by up to 74%. This includes reductions in risk of up to 78% for skull fracture, 72% for intracranial injury, 74% for concussive injury and 80% for open head wounds. The magnitude of the reduction in risk increased when increased severity of injury was considered. DAI constituted a very minor proportion of brain injury. The study confirms the results of many previous case–control studies, while addressing many of the limitations of such studies. Most notably, limitations relating to confounding by unknown variables have been addressed with the use of police-reported crash data.

Helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists were statistically significantly different with regards to cycling behaviour, where
non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, while less likely to cycle in risky areas. While the net
result was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes, this difference was small. The overall helmet wearing rate
was 75.4%, while only about half of children and adolescents less than 19 years were wearing a helmet. Given the large protective
effect of helmets demonstrated in the present study, this issue should be addressed with preventative action.
Last edited by human909 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4859
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:31 am

Honestly MHL are a joke. They are an abuse of our freedom forced upon cyclists by the government, encouraged by motoring organisations. The elephant in the room that does not seem to get addressed is that it is CARS killing cyclists. With proper education and enforcement we can be like most European cities where cyclists are significantly safer. With proper infrastructure we can be like the Netherlands and Copenhagen where cyclists are protected by good infrastructure. Instead we seem intent on insisting that foam helmets are the solution. A device that mitigates head injuries somewhat but still don't change the fact that you've now been hit by a 1.5tonne piece of metal that will do plenty of damage to you in other ways.

I think all these "researchers" should be sent on a boat to Amsterdam and given a bicycle as transport for a year. THAT sort of research would be far more production. Just look at what Darwin managed. :wink:
Last edited by human909 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4859
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:51 am

It is interesting to take note of this rebuttal article:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7511003228

The impact of compulsory cycle helmet legislation on cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia: A rejoinder

Abstract
This paper challenges the conclusion of a recent paper by Walter et al. (Accident Analysis and Prevention 2011, doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.029) reporting that despite numerous data limitations repealing the helmet legislation in Australia could not be justified. This conclusion is not warranted because of the limited time period used in their analysis and the lack of data beyond a few years before the introduction of legislation, the failure to adequately account for the effect of the phasing in of the legislation, the effect of the marked reduction in child cyclists, and the non-comparability of the pedestrian and cycling injuries and related lack of consideration of the severity of head injuries. The extent to which helmet legislation deters people from cycling is discussed.

Highlights
► This paper challenges the conclusion of a recent paper by Walter et al. (AAP 2011). ► There are significant problems with the assessment of the data by Walter et al. ► Retaining bicycle helmet legislation in Australia is not warranted.
human909
 
Posts: 4859
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby wilddemon » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:37 am

Mulger bill wrote:And yet they still haven't followed the (self appointed) world leaders in cycling safety after how many years? Now why do you think that might be? Maybe it's because they WANT all cyclists to be killed off ASAP, thereby making the world a much better place. [/tic]


That's quite a leap. Not sure what the point of this post is...

il padrone wrote:No call for the slanging and aspersions.


I actually had to look up aspersions. I'm probably not as well schooled as you. Aspersions: a disparaging or malicious remark; slanderous accusation. All I said is that your comments cause you to come across to me, as arrogant. If that's malicious or slanderous, sorry. I didn't think you were so sensitive.

Worryingly, the researchers also found children who were involved in a collision were much more likely to be unhelmeted. Children aged 12 years or less comprised 19% of all those who weren’t wearing a helmet at the time of their accident but just 7% of those who were.

This pattern was similar for those aged 13-19 years. Teenagers made up 35% of all those who weren’t wearing a helmet when they collided with a motor vehicle but 11% of those who were.


The study does not say that this is a representation of helmet use amongst teenagers and children.

Since it’s about accidents involving motor vehicles, this research can’t tell us if children and teenagers are more inclined to cycle without a helmet. However it shows non-helmet wearers in this age group are significantly over-represented in accidents.

By the power of MS calculator, I've determined that there were 221 head injuries amongst children and teenagers between 2001 and 2009.

The odds of sustaining a ‘moderate’ head injury in a collision are 1.9 times greater if the cyclist doesn’t wear a helmet.

However the odds of suffering a head injury classified as ‘serious’ are 2.6 times greater if the rider’s unhelmeted. In the case of a ‘severe’ head injury they’re 3.9 times greater.

When the researchers broke head injuries down by type, the estimated odds of suffering a ‘serious’ or ‘severe’ skull fracture if no helmet is worn is 4.6 times greater.


Now I agree with the anti-MHLs (heaven forbid!) that the ideal would be to have excellent cycling infrastructure, and excellent attitudes towards cyclists and cycling (road sharing) and I'm not criticising you for fantasising this ideal. But in the absence of this infrastructure and motorist attitude, don't you think it would be a good idea for children to be wearing helmets when riding bikes? il padrone, how many children's head injuries are acceptable to you?
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby BastardSheep » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:43 am

What a topic to put my first post in to.

The study being discussed I'm very dubious of, it absolutely reaks to me of your typical thinktank style data manipulation to find the conclusion that they were after.

Now before I go any further I'd like to put out the disclaimer that I haven't actually read the study itself (thought I'd like to if anyone knows where I can get it from, my quick searches a few weeks back failed), and even if I did get my hands on the study I'm not actually trained in reading/understanding research papers and studies, I'd be reading it from a layman's perspective.

that said, the things that made me think this study was highly dubious and an attempt to find data to fit a conclusion were things like this:
wilddemon wrote:The article that I read said that two identities, The Conversation and Sydney Morning Herald represented the paper with "Crash data shows cyclists with no helmets more likely to ride drunk" and "Cyclists without helmets ‘likely to be risk-takers'" respectively.


Which is more likely, that people who generally don't wear helmets are more likely to ride drunk, or that people who are riding drunk are less likely to don a helmet? Going from the articles, we have no idea how the information was gathered other than that they got their data from admissions in to hospitals. But was it observations, questionnaires, interviews etc? Did they confirm these drunk riders who were admitted and weren't wearing helmets at the time also don't wear helmets usually? If not, then their conclusions on this topic at the very least are invalid and downright wrong.

I'd really like to see how the data was gathered, what questions (if any) were asked, how data was gathered and classified etc. There was one other conclusion brought "from the data" that I was very highly dubious of when I was originally reading the articles, but I can't recall what it was anymore. I simply don't trust the "conclusions" of this study in the slightest at the current point in time.

Now for the shocker. Most people who argue against that study are anti-helmet, but I'm actually pro-helmet. When I was a kid and this helmet law was introduced helmets with the appropriate approval rating were still heavy and highly air restrictive. These days they're extremely light and let a hell of a lot of air in. They're barely intrusive and restrictive at all. Sure helmets are 100% effective, they're not a golden bullet against all head trauma, but they're not designed to be. They're only meant to provide that little extra bit of protection, to lessen the severity of an injury, and that is better than nothing.

One thing that was drilled in to me when I went for my motorbike license and people were discussing the cost of motorbike helmets was "how much is your head worth to you?". That question alone turned a $400 helmet from too expensive to cheap, and the fact that the only motorbike helmets that fit me properly being $800-$1000 as being laughable, to a good investment.

How much is your head worth to you? Is reducing the potential injury worth it? To me it most definitely is, I won't ride anywhere without my helmet. Those who argue against them never manage to convince me. That said, I'm not going to rant and rave and try to convince them either.

There's some things in life where people tend to take polar extremes and are very divisive. Politics. Religion. Drugs. Bicycle helmets.

I won't ever do certain branches of politics, I think those who do are idiots. If others choose to do those branches of politics, it's their mind and body to damage, it's their choice. I'll let them have it without complaint.
I won't ever do religion. I think those who do are idiots. If others choose to do religion though, it's their mind and body to damage, it's their choice. I'll let them have it without complaint.
I won't ever do illegal drugs, I've seen many quite convincing arguments that they're not as bad as they're made out to be, but I still won't touch them. If others choose to do drugs, it's their mind and body to damage, it's their choice. I'll let them have it without complaint.
I won't ever ride without a helmet. I think those who do are just risking worse damage to themselves. If others choose to ride without helmets though, it's their mind and body to damage, it's their choice. I'll let them have it without complaint.
User avatar
BastardSheep
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Sydney.

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:57 am

wilddemon wrote:But in the absence of this infrastructure and motorist attitude, don't you think it would be a good idea for children to be wearing helmets when riding bikes?

Anything that gets kids out and active in their community is really good. More people on bikes, more often. This what will play a huge role in making our streets a safer environment. If this is with no helmets that is fine too. If there is a huge issue with drivers still ignoring safe road behaviour, enforce stricter road rules, that require greater care and responsibility on our suburban streets

wilddemon wrote:il padrone, how many children's head injuries are acceptable to you?


Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18424
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby wilddemon » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:10 am

il padrone wrote:
wilddemon wrote:But in the absence of this infrastructure and motorist attitude, don't you think it would be a good idea for children to be wearing helmets when riding bikes?

Anything that gets kids out and active in their community is really good. More people on bikes, more often. This what will play a huge role in making our streets a safer environment. If this is with no helmets that is fine too. If there is a huge issue with drivers still ignoring safe road behaviour, enforce stricter road rules, that require greater care and responsibility on our suburban streets


You didn't actually answer the question so I'm not sure why you are quoting me.

Considering your last reply (re aspersions) I'm not sure why you then about face and make light of children's head injuries. Maybe the sensitivity is only a one way street.

You'd make a good politician.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby Ross » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:36 am

Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3760
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:37 am

wilddemon wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:And yet they still haven't followed the (self appointed) world leaders in cycling safety after how many years? Now why do you think that might be? Maybe it's because they WANT all cyclists to be killed off ASAP, thereby making the world a much better place. [/tic]


That's quite a leap. Not sure what the point of this post is...


Just to make it very simple for you, I'll take out the sarcastic bit...
He said:
high_tea wrote:Disagree. Helmet efficacy - including considerations like risk compensation - is studied in non-MHL jurisdictions. QED.

Which suggests that other parts of the world are looking into the worth of hemlets, possibly with a view to mandating their use.

I said:
Mulger bill wrote:And yet they still haven't followed the (self appointed) world leaders in cycling safety after how many years?

Which states that after many years of observation of the local situation and presumably many studies by these alluded to "non-MHL jurisdictions" they have not managed to confirm to their satisfaction that a cost/benefit analysis of MHL would provide a positive result. QED.
il padrone wrote:
wilddemon wrote:But in the absence of this infrastructure and motorist attitude, don't you think it would be a good idea for children to be wearing helmets when riding bikes?

Anything that gets kids out and active in their community is really good. More people on bikes, more often. This what will play a huge role in making our streets a safer environment. If this is with no helmets that is fine too. If there is a huge issue with drivers still ignoring safe road behaviour, enforce stricter road rules, that require greater care and responsibility on our suburban streets

wilddemon wrote:il padrone, how many children's head injuries are acceptable to you?

I hereby invoke Mulgerbills law of internet discussion. Twice. :twisted:
...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: 25806
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby wizdofaus » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:50 am

il padrone wrote:Anything that gets kids out and active in their community is really good.


I will say I'm pretty skeptical MHL stops any individual kid from wanting to ride a bike. My 7yo sits on the train for 15+ minutes wearing his helmet cos he thinks it's cool :S

But I do worry that MHL in general enforces the idea that bicycling is a dangerous activity, and modern day parental paranoia is surely a big part of the reason there aren't more kids on bikes (and primary schools have absurd rules 'banning' kids from riding to school etc.)
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:48 am

wilddemon wrote:
il padrone wrote:
wilddemon wrote:But in the absence of this infrastructure and motorist attitude, don't you think it would be a good idea for children to be wearing helmets when riding bikes?

Anything that gets kids out and active in their community is really good. More people on bikes, more often. This what will play a huge role in making our streets a safer environment. If this is with no helmets that is fine too. If there is a huge issue with drivers still ignoring safe road behaviour, enforce stricter road rules, that require greater care and responsibility on our suburban streets


You didn't actually answer the question so I'm not sure why you are quoting me.

Considering your last reply (re aspersions) I'm not sure why you then about face and make light of children's head injuries. Maybe the sensitivity is only a one way street.

And after your previous criticism of me it seems you have not been able to read my short post. Just to make it clear I'll spell it out for you then:

il padrone wrote:Anything that gets kids out and active in their community is really good..... ...... If this is with no helmets that is fine too.

.....means - No, I don't think it's a good idea, because there are other side effects.

il padrone wrote:More people on bikes, more often. This what will play a huge role in making our streets a safer environment.

....means - The direct safety benefits of more cyclists riding on our roads will quite likely outweigh any risks of increased head injuries. And this is before the health benefits to the individuals and the community from a more active lifestyle.


Also when I speak of helmets deterring kids from cycling I'm mainly referring to the teenage years. Yes the 7 year-olds are pretty much immune to the 'daggyness' factor - not so for 16 year olds
Last edited by il padrone on Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:44 pm, 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: 18424
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby wizdofaus » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:55 am

il padrone wrote:Also when I speak of helmets deterring kids from cycling I'm mainly referring to the teenage years. Yes the 7 year-olds are pretty much immune to the 'daggyness' factor - not so for 16 year olds

Sure, I'd think 12 is a pretty sensible cut-off age for MHL, with a possible exception of 12-17yos cycling on major roads, though that's making the law more complicated than it needs to be. Still a darn sight better than what we have now, and I'd see it as a stepping stone towards eventual complete elimination (of the laws that is. Though I'm far more interested in the eventual elimination of human drivers!)
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:25 pm

Look at the Victoria Police 'safety' focus when dealing with cyclists in their recent Operation Halo:

A total of 1950 offences were detected during the operation.

As part of the highly visible operation, police discovered:

1475 car and truck offences, including:
• 431 using a mobile phone while driving
• 241 disobeying traffic lights and signs
• 10 failing to give way

198 motorcycle offences, including:
• 110 riding in a bicycle lane
• 6 disobeying traffic lights and signs

140 bicycle offences, including:
• 86 failing to wear a helmet
• 30 disobeying traffic lights and signs
• 8 riding on a footpath
• 3 failing to have lights or equipment


137 pedestrian offences, including:
• 108 disobeying traffic lights
• 21 walking improperly on road
• 2 crossing within 20 metres of pedestrian crossing

The Bicycle Patrol Unit nabbed 17 motorcyclists in less than an hour for riding in a bicycle lane on Rathdowne Street in Carlton on Friday 22 February.

Now do really think there would be 86 people riding without a helmet in a typical time span, but only 8 riding the footpath..... and only 3 without lights or 'equipment'??

:roll:

Prorities equal hammering cyclists for clothing rules rather than correcting actual dangerous behaviour.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18424
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby wizdofaus » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:16 pm

il padrone wrote:
As part of the highly visible operation, police discovered:

1475 car and truck offences, including:
• 431 using a mobile phone while driving
• 241 disobeying traffic lights and signs
• 10 failing to give way



You'd have to think if they included speed testing and drink-driving there'd be a lot more.

BTW, is it legal to ride a bike while talking on a mobile phone? I know I do it far too often and it's probably one of those things that if it were an definitely illegal and fine-able offence I'd more likely to pull over to answer my phone.
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

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

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:37 pm

Got F-all to do with safety.....it's all REVENUE !

Same as speed cameras, none at schools but hundreds all over dual carriageways and motorways ! Greedy lying scummy Govt and Cops. :evil:
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

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

Postby wizdofaus » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:50 pm

wurtulla wabbit wrote:Got F-all to do with safety.....it's all REVENUE !

Same as speed cameras, none at schools but hundreds all over dual carriageways and motorways ! Greedy lying scummy Govt and Cops. :evil:


What's so wrong with using speed cameras to collect much needed taxpayer revenue? It's about one of the fairest ways I can think of. As for school zones (40 k/h), I see them patrolling those quite often, and I suspect they get a very high hit rate there too, so it's both revenue-raising and improving safety for kids.
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

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

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:14 pm

Because....speeding doesn't kill, poor judgement, drink, distractions, sleep and a whole manner of other reasons.
Drifting over the limit is real easy when you do big klms and you should (preferrably) be watching/concentrating the road not a dial on the dash (which is more common due to cameras)!
I never see them at our kids school, usually jammed anyway with idiots stopped on roundabouts blocking all traffic because they didn't want to lose a car space ! :roll:

Suppose this is a whole other can of worms ! :lol:
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: human909



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