Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[high_tea]

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

No, Queensland. Brisbane council now spends as much on cycling facilities as mowing. What can I say, I've gotten good at seeing little glimmers of hope. I prefer lip service to apathy, just not by much.

[jcjordan]

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.

I am not trying to turn this into a gun debate but mearly reflecting that both use emotion and belief as the basis for large parts of the argument and that in many cases this detracts from the factual elements.

As you point out you dont see how not wearing a helmet effects others. Others have pointed to data that shows that helmets can possibly reduce the level of injuries. If this was proven to be correct it would mean that MHL do effect the majority as it would potentially reduce Medicare costs.

[jcjordan]

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.

Plus you can not relate personal ownership and use of weapons directly inflicts harm others any more then driving does or the ownership of cricket bats.

[il padrone]

As you point out you dont see how not wearing a helmet effects others. Others have pointed to data that shows that helmets can possibly reduce the level of injuries. If this was proven to be correct it would mean that MHL do effect the majority as it would potentially reduce Medicare costs.

This is a total furphy that gets raised in this discussion from time to time. By this standard the ordinary motor vehicle should be a banned device - they cause HUGE increases to Medicare costs

[jcjordan]

As you point out you dont see how not wearing a helmet effects others. Others have pointed to data that shows that helmets can possibly reduce the level of injuries. If this was proven to be correct it would mean that MHL do effect the majority as it would potentially reduce Medicare costs.

This is a total furphy that gets raised in this discussion from time to time. By this standard the ordinary motor vehicle should be a banned device - they cause HUGE increases to Medicare costs

But they are not because the cost and benifits have been considered.

This same cost benefit analysis has not been undertaken with the MHL's due to the emmotional beliefs about freedom have always gotten in the way. Much like the gun debate in the US.

[il padrone]

This is a total furphy that gets raised in this discussion from time to time. By this standard the ordinary motor vehicle should be a banned device - they cause HUGE increases to Medicare costs

But they are not because the cost and benifits have been considered.

This same cost benefit analysis has not been undertaken with the MHL's due to the emmotional beliefs about freedom have always gotten in the way. Much like the gun debate in the US.

You lost me there I'm afraid. You think costs and benefits have been considered in people's choice/freedom to use the motor vehicle ??? I've got to disagree with you very strongly there. Individuals (and society in general) do not take full account of the costs of the rampant use of motor vehicles. Pollution, congestion, CO2 emissions, road deaths and disability, sedentary lifestyle, consumption of scarce resources, damage to urban lifestyle, etc, etc. In economics it is the classic case study of negative externalities - costs that are not born by those who produce/cause them.

Re. bike helmets and MHL, the benefits have all been measured very thoroughly by our medico-safety campaigners, it's simply that no-one has taken full account of the costs to cycle-use and society resulting from MHL.

[jet-ski]

JCjordan - When you do a cost-benefit analysis you need to get a handle on the costs. As a society we have a problem with that still.

On the cost of cars to society, most people I find just dont 'get' it.

Afterall, the reason why we all pay out money each year to register our cars is to insure all of the other road users we endanger by using our cars. Third Party Injury insurance is compulsory for a reason. Some people think costs stop there. Living near busy roads has been proven to reduce baby weights in kids in Perth and asthma rates too (there are published studies on this, I will look for them if anyone is interested). You could draw a longer bow of car use = sedentary lifestyle = more lifestyle diseases. Then there are the costs of congestion in terms of time and productivity which each capital city is just starting to get a handle on now.

There are many more costs. You can bet they haven't all been considered by policymakers.

[human909]

As you point out you dont see how not wearing a helmet effects others. Others have pointed to data that shows that helmets can possibly reduce the level of injuries. If this was proven to be correct it would mean that MHL do effect the majority as it would potentially reduce Medicare costs.

I'm sorry but that argument is absurd!

What are the benefits of rock fishing? Should that be banned, that is a highly dangerous sport. What about mountain biking? Rock climbing? Skiing? Smoking? Homosexual sex? We don't ban things simply because they POTENTIALLY increase Medicare costs!

The argument that personal should all be subjected to a country wide cost-benefit analysis is positively scary.


But such analysis has been done and time and time again it shows that MHL are a negative influence to health and society!

[il padrone]

And that the health benefits of more cycling outweighs the costs of injuries and deaths in cyclists by a factor of 20 times

[wizdofaus]

You could draw a longer bow of car use = sedentary lifestyle = more lifestyle diseases.

I don't think that's a longer bow at all - a slightly longer bow would be to suggest that cars are what make obesity possible. There are very very few people indeed who would be considered severely overweight that don't depend on their car to get around. If they were required to use at least partially active modes of transport (at least 10 minutes walking a day) it's damn unlikely they would ever have become so overweight in the first place: if nothing else, physical activity makes you very aware of your body weight and is far more likely to prompt you to keep it in check, even if the actual calories you burn by walking 10 minutes a day aren't particularly significant.

[wizdofaus]

I'm sorry but that argument is absurd!

What are the benefits of rock fishing? Should that be banned, that is a highly dangerous sport. What about mountain biking? Rock climbing? Skiing? Smoking? Homosexual sex? We don't ban things simply because they POTENTIALLY increase Medicare costs!

No, but we do (where feasible) introduce regulation that tries to build in some of those external costs into the activities in question. And we do often ban activities, like fishing in known highly dangerous locations, where the risks of death are much higher than individuals are likely to sensibly judge for themselves. Even with sexual activities - I don't have a particular problem with the NSW law, for example, that makes it an offence to engage in unprotected sex with someone without revealing first that you are HIV positive.

[Howzat]

The argument that personal should all be subjected to a country wide cost-benefit analysis is positively scary.

Jeepers, mate. We do this kind of thing all the time. And it works out fine. It's what societal curbs on smoking, asbestos, and dynamite are about. It's why we have laws on traffic lights, seatbelts, speeding, driving drunk and headlights. We even have laws to insist you wear pants in public.

It's perfectly routine to come up with a balance between private risk and public interest. Unless you want to live in a cave in the hills, it's necessary to do so.

Together we've said that as a cyclist, you need to take a minimum level of personal responsibility. You have a minimum duty of care to yourself and others. Namely; working brakes, lights at night, and a helmet on your noggin. Then off you go. You can even ride on the roads with neither license for yourself nor registration for your bike.

If you find that postively scary, I'd direct you to reflect on rule #5.

[il padrone]

Together we've said that as a cyclist, you need to take a minimum level of personal responsibility. You have a minimum duty of care to yourself and others. Namely; working brakes, lights at night, and a helmet on your noggin. Then off you go. You can even ride on the roads with neither license for yourself nor registration for your bike.

All of the above is universally accepted in almost every other developed nation around the world.






Except for the requirement for a helmet.

[wizdofaus]

You could draw a longer bow of car use = sedentary lifestyle = more lifestyle diseases.

I don't think that's a longer bow at all - a slightly longer bow would be to suggest that cars are what make obesity possible.

And slightly longer again is that car use indirectly causes this sort of thing. And let's not even mention all the oil spills...

Cars could *potentially* have benefits that outweigh the costs, but only if we restricted their use to journeys where there just were no good alternatives.

[Xplora]

LOL.

That is all. Guns and dynamite... if MHL defenders are trying to bring up dynamite as a parallel to the bicycle helmet as a responsible curb on freedom, you cannot begin to believe how stupid that sounds. WOW.

[il padrone]

Guns and dynamite - the heart of the free world

The Comancheros and Hell's Angels run their society that way after all - all good!!!

[human909]

Cars could *potentially* have benefits that outweigh the costs, but only if we restricted their use to journeys where there just were no good alternatives.

The great cities of the world have done this to some degree or another. New York, Tokyo, Paris, London all have great public transport and all are working to improve the position of bikes and reduce the access for cars. Most of the Netherlands discourages car use for short trips and encourages cycling use. Less than 1% of the cyclists wear helmets and they are significantly safer.


Cars bring great benefits and great costs. The external costs are worst in high population cities. The personal costs of using a car is ever present and has certainly been a contributing factor to obesity.

[il padrone]

Getting a bit OT but there was this from RN a couple of weeks ago.

Their report finds that traffic congestion is costing the national economy more than $9 billion a year, and they're calling on governments to look at introducing staggered school times, congestion charges and high speed rail to deal with the problem, as James Glenday reports.

Podcast

That is congestion resulting from the excessive use of motor vehicles BTW, not bicycles.

[human909]

Their report finds that traffic congestion is costing the national economy more than $9 billion a year, and they're calling on governments to look at introducing staggered school times, congestion charges and high speed rail to deal with the problem, as James Glenday reports.

That figure sounds like a underestimate. Though it all depends on what assumptions are being made and how it is being measured.

One such way to calculate a figure is to simple sum each individual's private willingness to pay to reduce or remove congestion. Well it can be easily shown that private individuals are ALREADY paying $3 billion a year just to get even a fraction reduction in congestion. For the $5million or so drivers that face congestion each day I don't believe that $10 a day is an obscene figure to completely remove congestion. Some people already pay as much anyway to merely reduce congestion. Transport companies would largely pay much higher amounts. In short on back of the envelope calculations I would suggest that a better estimate figure would probably 2-5x higher.

The public and private saving of more cycling are massive.

[high_tea]

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?

I think it's a trivial imposition. I find it surprising that people get worked up about the human-rights implications, but there's no right or wrong in matters of taste.

My real complaint is twofold. First, there are enough real problems - non-trivial impositions on important freedoms - for it to astonish me that this rates a mention. Secondly, it amazes me that there is any view of "freedom" that could found an objection to bicycle helmet laws in particular. I can understand how a cyclist would find the law particularly inconvenient, but I can't make the leap from "inconvenient" to "unrighteous", not without conflating convenience and freedom.

[wurtulla wabbit]

Unrighteous because its unfounded.
Same as highway speed cameras.

[il padrone]

Secondly, it amazes me that there is any view of "freedom" that could found an objection to bicycle helmet laws in particular.

Sorry to beat the same old drum, but if the inconvenience/freedom imposition is so trivial........ why did authorities not mandate the helmet for car drivers.... for pedestrians on the street ???

[QuangVuong]

Tbh, I rarely wear a helmet, unless I'm riding to some far unknown place. Locally I never do. Helmets make me sweat more than I should, as well I reckon obstruct hearing. All the wind noise is emphasised through the vents,etc and I have a harder time hearing cars that roll up behind. But then again, I mainly ride on the right lane/shoulder so that I can see the cars coming.

How likely is it that NSW cops would fine for this? Once in a while I ride past cop cars, but never have they done anything. And what's the price of a fine? I can't really find an exact value.

[il padrone]

You're playing with the well known "bicycle-invisibility factor". But every now and then the cloak blows off in the wind...... and then you're up for a double-dose fine

In Victoria fines for cycling offenses went up a few years back - the helmet fine is $146; you could be up for $260 and upwards for multiple offenses.

[outnabike]

Tbh, I rarely wear a helmet, unless I'm riding to some far unknown place. Locally I never do. Helmets make me sweat more than I should, as well I reckon obstruct hearing. All the wind noise is emphasised through the vents,etc and I have a harder time hearing cars that roll up behind. But then again, I mainly ride on the right lane/shoulder so that I can see the cars coming.

How likely is it that NSW cops would fine for this? Once in a while I ride past cop cars, but never have they done anything. And what's the price of a fine? I can't really find an exact value.

Hi QuangVuong,
I know what you are saying , but one ticket will cost more than the helmet and then you still have to get a helmet. I do see many folk with out helmets, but when riding on the roads I also see many police cars. Then I am glad to have it on.
I have seen riders stopped but cannot say the out come . Always seems to be a lot of head pointing and furious writing by the constabulary though.