Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[ColinOldnCranky]

I was most put out when I had reason in Adelaide to check whether I had to wear a helment or not.

Sure enough, those on wheeled recreational devices WRDs) are required to wear helmets. In South Oz that includes scooters, inline and other skates, skateboards. They do not specify where unicycles are but I accept that they are also WRDs as it seems to be the common classificatiuon elsewhere.

So I am now the proud owner of a roadworthy helmet for parades and other events wehere I am either required to wear one or where it is on-message with the particular event.

Now I just have to ditch the old (and likely useless) 10 year old helmet with many layers of stickers from past events.

Though if I require one, then I really think that those women on high heeled platform shoes are in even more need a helmet.

[wurtulla wabbit]

Watched kids coming out mr school today while waiting on my two dragging their slow selfs out of school...
Kids on bikes, scooters, skateboards, all doing similar speeds but only bike users wearing a lid.

[Ross]

Free helmets to boost Vic bike hire scheme From: AAP
March 21, 2013 10:35AM
Introduced in 2010, the scheme was slow to get off the ground because of Victoria's compulsory helmet laws.

The Victorian government began selling helmets for $5, with users able to claim $3 back upon their return.

Public Transport Minister Terry Mulder says the government will now give out 200 free helmets at the city's 51 hire sites to try to boost rentals.

Mr Mulder said a similar trial was successful in Brisbane.

"The bikes that have free helmets attached to them in Brisbane had an uptake of three times greater than those that didn't," he told reporters in Melbourne on Thursday.

Advertisements would be put on the bikes to recoup some of the costs of running the scheme.

The minister said the scheme was picking up, with 137,000 usages in 2011/12, compared to 102,000 in 2010/11.

The government has spent $5 million on the scheme in its first three years, Mr Mulder said.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/na ... z2O8DoDLco" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Summernight]

Does that mean I can get a free helmet to use as a spare for my normal bike now?

[il padrone]

Free helmets to boost Vic bike hire scheme From: AAP
March 21, 2013 10:35AM

BWAHAHAHAHHHAAAAAHHAAAAAAA!!!

Sorry, just so ridiculous. Total inefffectiveness by Mulder. Who is he anyway???


21652428

The minister said the scheme was picking up, with 137,000 usages in 2011/12, compared to 102,000 in 2010/11.

Hmm......

It should be noted that in the Irish city of Dublin (population 1.7 million, no helmet law) referenced above, more than 40,000 people signed up in the first year of a bike hire scheme launched in 2009. Operators report that well over a million bicycles were hired in the first 12 months.

Growth rate of 35% for Melbourne's bikeshare. I may have the calculations wrong but at that rate I make it just 21 years until we catch up to Dublin's usage figures

[Xplora]

200... how can that make a dent into the 50000 people who would use it, if we used the Dublin example?

Egg, may I introduce Chicken... Cart, here's my pal Horse. You'll be running in front today

[human909]

The minister said the scheme was picking up, with 137,000 usages in 2011/12, compared to 102,000 in 2010/11.

The government has spent $5 million on the scheme in its first three years, Mr Mulder said.

Lets call it an average of 120,000 uses each year, so..... $5,000,000/(120,000uses/year * 3 years) =~ $14 per use.

So the government has spent approximately $14 per use. Unfortunately this will be seen by the government as a failure of cycling rather than a failure of MHLs.

[il padrone]

If they did drop the helmet requirement completely for the bikeshare, the greatest problem they will then face is the ongoing perception amongst the public that you need a helmet so it's still just too much bother

Meantime Dublin is all set to boost their bikeshare scheme to 1500 bikes.

[Summernight]

If they did drop the helmet requirement completely for the bikeshare, the greatest problem they will then face is the ongoing perception amongst the public that you need a helmet so it's still just too much bother

But the tourists from non-mandatory helmet countries won't have this perception... And the non-mandatory helmet supporters wouldn't either.

[il padrone]

But the tourists from non-mandatory helmet countries won't have this perception... And the non-mandatory helmet supporters wouldn't either.

Fair point, they'll be OK. But I think in many of the cities where these schemes are working really well, the greater bulk of users are locals, just ordinary Joe Average.

[Summernight]

Agreed, but my belief is if people start seeing oodles of tourists and normal anti MHL-cyclists riding around on the bikes without helmets (if the exemption came in) and possibly in their suits and work clothes etc. then they'd start thinking 'it isn't so dangerous' and then the rate would increase and the perception cycle (pun intended) that it is safe would continue and participation would increase. Like presumably what happened with the successful bikeshare schemes in other cities.

Not to mention people would try out the bikes without helmets as a novelty BECAUSE they can ride the bike without a helmet and they cannot do so on a normal bike (without risking a fine). Riding past a police car would be a thrill.

Of course, any such exemption would have to be clearly advertised in the media etc. because otherwise you'd have idiots saying "put on a helmet" to the bikeshare people.

[Xplora]

Of course, any such exemption would have to be clearly advertised in the media etc. because otherwise you'd have idiots saying "put on a helmet" to the bikeshare people.

Creating the delightful irony that the idiots yelling at the bikeshare cyclists are the most serious danger to that cyclist...

The question instantly becomes "why must the rest of us wear the helmet if the bikeshare don't? What is the fundamental difference in the two modes?"

The answer is of course that there are none

[Summernight]

Of course, any such exemption would have to be clearly advertised in the media etc. because otherwise you'd have idiots saying "put on a helmet" to the bikeshare people.

Creating the delightful irony that the idiots yelling at the bikeshare cyclists are the most serious danger to that cyclist...

The question instantly becomes "why must the rest of us wear the helmet if the bikeshare don't? What is the fundamental difference in the two modes?"

The answer is of course that there are none

Exactly, and that is the excuse currently being used to NOT bring the exemption in for the bikeshare scheme at all. It was spoken in that video il Padrone posted by the ex Victorian Transport Minister if I remember correctly.

The video mentioned that the bikeshare scheme in Melbourne is not working and that the mandatory helmet laws in Australia don't correlate to lesser bicycle injuries - apparently the non-mandatory helmet wearing countries have less bicycle accidents than we do and we're supposedly the safer country with our helmet wearing.

The way to get a law overturned is to create so many exemptions that it is useless (if those in power don't see reason on the law prior). That is the definition of a bad law and is the tipping point to getting it changed. The people in charge are very aware of that and the precedent that would be set if they granted the bikeshare exemption. I think it is a reason why they are now trialling the handing out of free helmets.

[il padrone]

The minister is now, belatedly, acknowledging that the helmet-law is a problem, but is unwilling to take the sensible, most-obvious way to resolve it. Free helmets for every citizen would still not save the Melbourne Bikeshare. It's a dog with MHLs.

When I, a committed cyclist, can ride my bike wearing my helmet to the station to catch a train, but then lock the helmet with the bike (for security and because I don't want to be burdened with carrying it), then get into the CBD where I wish I could just use a bikeshare bike for transport...... what hope is there to attract Joe Average ??

[wurtulla wabbit]

Just ride the bike, MHL , pffft. Good luck to any cop (like the last monkey suited lollipop licking revenue collector) trying to give me a ticket for a bike lid.

Two words he'd hear..............


People need to take a stand and not just do as they're told with this crap.

[high_tea]

The minister is now, belatedly, acknowledging that the helmet-law is a problem, but is unwilling to take the sensible, most-obvious way to resolve it. Free helmets for every citizen would still not save the Melbourne Bikeshare. It's a dog with MHLs.

OTOH the minister appears to be treating improving cycling uptake as a policy objective. That's good news.

[high_tea]

Does that mean I can get a free helmet to use as a spare for my normal bike now?

Judging from the number of yellow CityCycle helmets I see attached to patently-non-CItyCycle bikes around Brisbane, that question has been asked before.

[human909]

People need to take a stand and not just do as they're told with this crap.

The problem is that when one person take a stand they get fined and nothing comes of it. (unless you have a law degree and lots of time)

We need a concerted push from bike advocacy groups but at the moment some are actively supporting MHLs.

[il padrone]

OTOH the minister appears to be treating improving cycling uptake as a policy objective. That's good news.

You don't live in Victoria do you ??

This government is madly trying to save pennies. The Bikeshare is costing them quite a few, so they want to make it pay..... or at least come closer. As for the "improvement of cycling as a policy objective" - they could start by putting some dollars into the bicycle facilities budget.

Any as it is currently sitting at zero !!!$21 million to zero in just one term - now that's a record to be proud of

[jcjordan]

It should be quite clear to anybody in our society that the default course of social legislation should be freedom not restriction.

Fixt.

Sadly, this is not the case in practice.


Dent.

There comes a time were some freedoms need to be controlled to protect the majority.

I see many of the arguments used on this forum justifying the removal of MHL based on on science but persevered need for freedoms.

I could uses these same arguments to justify my 'right' to carry a concealed firearm.

Based on the fact that i have a right to defend myself, my family and my property.

We dont in Australia because we have a belief that mass carrage of weapons is not good for the majority.

You can even use statistics to prove the value of this argument.

Take Washington State as an example. 1976 the put in laws to control to the carrage of weapons and crimes against the individual did rise significantly over the 15 years that they were in place. Once they were removed and caragge was reinstated those same crimes dropped in half.

[wizdofaus]

Agreed, but my belief is if people start seeing oodles of tourists and normal anti MHL-cyclists riding around on the bikes without helmets (if the exemption came in) and possibly in their suits and work clothes etc. then they'd start thinking 'it isn't so dangerous' and then the rate would increase and the perception cycle (pun intended) that it is safe would continue and participation would increase.

Only up to a point though. The last few times I've ridden around the CBD at peak hour it's amazing anybody uses a bicycle at all. It's almost impossible to get from any one point to another safely and smoothly with a few small exceptions. Aside from Swanston St, none of the CBD roads have adequate cycling facilities. I know they're working on Latrobe St, but it's not enough - *every* road in the CBD should be safe for cycling on, which includes bike lanes with some sort of raised physical barrier (even if it's just textured ribbing) separating them from traffic. Nothing less is going to make the major of commuters feel that bicycling is safe (and for us already committed cyclists, without physically separated lanes, getting through CBD traffic is just a pain).

[human909]

There comes a time were some freedoms need to be controlled to protect the majority.

I completely agree. But how does this relate to MHLs? How does my choice not to wear a helmet harm others. How does forcing me to wear a helmet protect the majority?

I see many of the arguments used on this forum justifying the removal of MHL based on on science but persevered need for freedoms.

I could uses these same arguments to justify my 'right' to carry a concealed firearm.

Personal firearm ownership clearly and directly inflicts harm onto others. This is not at all similar.

Please don't turn this thread into a gun debate.

[wurtulla wabbit]

People need to take a stand and not just do as they're told with this crap.

The problem is that when one person take a stand they get fined and nothing comes of it. (unless you have a law degree and lots of time)

We need a concerted push from bike advocacy groups but at the moment some are actively supporting MHLs.

Not so, it has already happened to me and the family.
4 of us out cycling on path from Caloundra to seafront, they stopped on a ped crossing, blocked traffic and lectured u s.
I laughed at them and pointed out all the infringements they had done whilst talking crap and they left with a " get a helmet on" comment.
I said no and walked on !

If they bust ya, make a big hoohaa about it to media !!

[high_tea]

There comes a time were some freedoms need to be controlled to protect the majority.

I completely agree. But how does this relate to MHLs? How does my choice not to wear a helmet harm others. How does forcing me to wear a helmet protect the majority?

I see many of the arguments used on this forum justifying the removal of MHL based on on science but persevered need for freedoms.

I could uses these same arguments to justify my 'right' to carry a concealed firearm.

Personal firearm ownership clearly and directly inflicts harm onto others. This is not at all similar.

Please don't turn this thread into a gun debate.

Oh, where's the fun in that? It's not the least relevant digression, nor even close to the wierdest in this rambling thread. And y'know, you make sweeping statements about freedom, people explore the implications. So it goes.

PS I have no interest in a gun debate either. Only a nebulous debate about some nebulous freedom isn't much better.

[human909]

Do you think it is so wrong to desire a freedom that the almost ALL the rest of the world has but we don't? A personal freedom that does no harm to others and does not intrude on other people's freedoms?