Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
Helmet laws are useless, most countries use Australia as the example for why mandatory helmet use laws don't work!
I felt far safer riding around London without a helmet than riding around Brisbane with one, I find it increasingly hard to believe that a helmet will keep you safe if you have (any kind) of crash.
Stay safe out there.
Because the driving stds here are woeful !
That is because a helmet will not "keep you safe if you have... ...[a] crash."
However, there is a good chance it will reduce the severity of a head injury.
Personally I'd rather have the increased freedom (visibility/moment) that riding without a helmet allows.
Also: Motorists give non-helmet wearing plain-clothes riders (with a bit of a wobble on) far more room than they give helmet wearing lycra-lad 'pros'... the former keeps you statistically safer than avoiding a major brain bruise in the event of a crash.
I was reading the front page by accident. Professor Rissel's quote on the front page has pretty much finished the conversation for my thinking - eloquent, to the point, and covers everything.
The saddest part is that we are faced with so many challenges, and the bicycle has the ability to help with many of them. Congestion, transport for the poor, obesity issues, activity levels in the population, smoking and drinking... these things are helped by riding. Only a silly person smokes if they ride a fair bit, the main person who suffers if you drink and ride is your drunken self, hard to bludge.
Actually quite a lot of European cyclists do this..... But yes, everything you say there is quite correct.
That chink in the armour is looking bigger and bigger... practicality is now an accepted excuse at law in Qld, because it infringes on rights. The leap to the rest of the population is not nearly as far as some might think.
It has been mentioned elsewhere that Sikhs swung this for motorcycle helmets in the UK some 30-40 years ago. Near as I can judge, the motorcycle helmet laws aren't going anywhere. Plus WA (and possibly others) has had a religious-and-cultural exemption for some time. So I don't see any historical precedent for this being the beginning of the end for MHLs.
The beginning of the end occurred some time ago. It is just a long ending.
On a related cycling note. My sister is having to wear less form fitting clothes while riding her bike because of a number of comments about her cycling while pregnant!? There really is something wrong with this country and their attitudes to cycling. She plans on buying a Bakfiets to transport the child of course the legality of all that is questionable.
Ooh, she'll get into trouble carrying a kid on a bike, way way too dangerous. Must carry kids in a truck for their own safety.
Yep, big attitude problem here, not helped by the helmet laws promoting the myth that cycling is so dangerous we need protective helmets.
Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
It really does come down to "imbecile" thinking levels once you realise what the issue is... they think the road is dangerous because of all the cars, so their solution is more cars.
I ask everyone who talks about danger if they've been in a serious car accident before. If you honestly thought that would happen on a regular basis, would you still travel by car? Do you realise that the seriousness of your accident was BECAUSE of the car, not DESPITE it? I am willing to bet that people with whiplash injuries wouldn't have them if they had ridden a bike and were thrown from the saddle. Perhaps they might have travelled in a way that would have reduced their risk?
The cognitive dissonance involved in car transport is just so mind blowing it hurts my head. I find it equally amazing that cyclists can safely travel at 40kmh within 6 inchs of another bike on all sides and serious accidents are incredibly rare. Try doing that with a car
Its the car culture combined with our absurdly distorted attitude to risk. The constant warnings about this that and the other doesn't help. Many people are actually afraid to WALK on our streets because of fear of muggings an attacks. If we aren't cocooned in our cars then what is there to protect us!
I would argue that the common assertion by motorists that "the roads are too dangerous for cycling" is an attempt to lower expectations of driving standards. they would prefer that it was acceptable to charge along and not have to keep a look out, much less slow down, for vulnerable road users. it's the same thing when you see motorists charge through pedestrian crossings in front of pedestrians - it's their crude means of normalising such behaviour, saying to pedestrians "don't think you have right of way!"
we're missing the point when we constantly discuss the ignorance of motorists in over-estimating the dangers of cycling. they know what they're doing.
I get what you are saying and I think there is some truth to it. However the genuine fear from loved or work colleagues is real. Most people really do consider that the roads are too unsafe for cyclists. In fact many cyclists believe so to, my sister cycles to work EVERYDAY but she the vast majority of roads including most of the ones with bike lanes too dangerous.
there are 2 different statements there:
1. the roads are not yet safe enough for cyclists (good)
2. the roads are too unsafe for cyclists to use them (bad)
I can agree with you that it is "bad" that this sentiment is held. But nonetheless it is a belief that many motorists and some cyclists still hold. It would be unproductive to ignore it, particularly of the cyclists. I personally rarely feel at risk on the streets of Brunswick (Lygon, Nicholson, Sydney Rd) yet the same streets my sister feels uneasy on.
(I'm not meaning to argue, I'm just posing the harder questions. )
Jules, the behaviour you describe is 100% sociopathic, and should be treated as such. It doesn't matter if its conscious or unconscious or subconscious, it has to removed because the consequences of vehicular social immaturity are basically unacceptable. I can't really add anything beyond that. Apart from advocating open carry gun policies...
Australia being singled out for our failed helmet law policy in Britain:
236 pages and what do we get?
Same showtime, different smell.
and "Shakes head"
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
What do you expect? While we continue to house absurd laws there will continue to be debate about them and a desire to abolish them.
More likely, it demonstrates that specious furphies - my favourite is that helmets cause head injuries - are hard to kill.
My observation is that the discussion is mainly about the value of pursuing MHL abolition versus pursuing other measures to accelerate the uptake of cycling.
There is the occasional red herring about loony arguments emanating from either pro or anti MHL
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
It is hard to kill because people like you keep bringing it up!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: beanspropulsion