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 DavidS » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:45 am

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote: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. :wink:

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. :roll:


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.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

by BNA » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:39 am

BNA
 

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:39 am

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 ;)
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby human909 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:42 pm

Xplora wrote: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?


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!
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:53 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby human909 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:15 pm

jules21 wrote: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.
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jules21 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:32 pm

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)
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

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

Postby human909 » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:08 pm

jules21 wrote: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. :D )
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:14 pm

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...
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby lturner » Wed May 01, 2013 11:14 pm

Australia being singled out for our failed helmet law policy in Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22297750
lturner
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am

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

Postby martinjs » Wed May 01, 2013 11:23 pm

236 pages and what do we get?

Same !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!, different smell.

:roll:
and "Shakes head"
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!
User avatar
martinjs
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Fivebough, Leeton

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

Postby human909 » Thu May 02, 2013 2:34 pm

martinjs wrote:236 pages and what do we get?

Same showtime, different smell.

:roll:
and "Shakes head"


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.
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Howzat » Thu May 02, 2013 5:46 pm

More likely, it demonstrates that specious furphies - my favourite is that helmets cause head injuries - are hard to kill.
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

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

Postby KenGS » Thu May 02, 2013 7:59 pm

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
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

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

Postby human909 » Thu May 02, 2013 9:47 pm

Howzat wrote:More likely, it demonstrates that specious furphies - my favourite is that helmets cause head injuries - are hard to kill.


It is hard to kill because people like you keep bringing it up! :mrgreen:
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby mikesbytes » Fri May 03, 2013 8:44 am

Figured you guys would enjoy reading this article

http://crag.asn.au/2826#.UYD8JDAl8GM.facebook
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 15155
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

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

Postby twizzle » Fri May 03, 2013 12:30 pm

Ahhhhh! Mike has turned into a Troll!

:P :lol:
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 Howzat » Fri May 03, 2013 12:35 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Figured you guys would enjoy reading this article

Thanks for the link!. I'll get to that right after some vital reading on the global climate change hoax, the area 51 cover-up, and how fluoride was introduced so the population would placidly accept mandatory helmet laws :roll:
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

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

Postby human909 » Fri May 03, 2013 4:08 pm

Thanks for the last 3 posts which pretty much confirmed my prior post! :D
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby mikesbytes » Fri May 03, 2013 6:46 pm

twizzle wrote:Ahhhhh! Mike has turned into a Troll!

:P :lol:

LOL
A helmet saved my life
User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 15155
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney

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

Postby g-boaf » Sun May 05, 2013 10:53 am

Someone on a ride yesterday went down heavily. :( Badly injured - but if it weren't for the helmet - he might have had nasty head injuries too. The helmet cracked - but it did its job.

Perhaps what is needed is for cyclists to be required to wear full shoulder padding too, like in American Football? :P Go on AGF or SCA, surprise us by supporting such a necessary safety initiative. :twisted:
g-boaf
 
Posts: 4751
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

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

Postby Ross » Sun May 05, 2013 4:02 pm

http://www.scotsman.com/news/fury-at-sh ... -1-2920362

Fury at sheriff’s helmet claim in cyclist death case
Sheriff Scott said that Mrs Fyfe “contributed significantly” to her own death because she was not wearing a helmet – a safety measure not required by law.
:o
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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

Postby human909 » Sun May 05, 2013 5:55 pm

g-boaf wrote:Someone on a ride yesterday went down heavily. :( Badly injured - but if it weren't for the helmet - he might have had nasty head injuries too. The helmet cracked - but it did its job.

Perhaps what is needed is for cyclists to be required to wear full shoulder padding too, like in American Football? :P Go on AGF or SCA, surprise us by supporting such a necessary safety initiative. :twisted:


If you partake in higher risk forms of cycling then it makes sense to take appropriate precautions and if necessary wear helmets and armour. :wink: Conversely having laws that require equipment normally reserved for higher risk activities encourages high risk participation at the expense of low risk.

(Most of my cycling I would consider quite low risk.)
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby The zob » Sun May 05, 2013 7:36 pm

G'Day. New here, and this was the last (type of) thread I expected to find tbh. :shock: I've had a random lookee through maybe 30 pages but I can't find any examples of how helmets can hurt you......which I thought was the issue. Is that it? Or is this more a "I don't need to be told what to do" thread?
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
The zob
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 pm

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

Postby human909 » Sun May 05, 2013 9:59 pm

The zob wrote:G'Day. New here, and this was the last (type of) thread I expected to find tbh. :shock: I've had a random lookee through maybe 30 pages but I can't find any examples of how helmets can hurt you......which I thought was the issue. Is that it? Or is this more a "I don't need to be told what to do" thread?


Hey! Welcome to the forum! :D

Most people in this world ride bikes without the need for a helmet. Most people in the world a free to choose what to wear on their heads. In Australia we don't have this choice that most of the world has. Instead, Australia discouraged cycling by disallowing cycling without a helmet. :evil:


Of course you are free to wear a helmet if you choose and I see no problem with that. Unfortunately those of us who don't wear helmets get fined. :evil:
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Xplora » Sun May 05, 2013 10:15 pm

The zob wrote:... I can't find any examples of how helmets can hurt you......

In summary, it has been found that helmet laws discourage cycling. It has also been found that reducing the number of cyclists on the road creates significant danger for the remaining cyclists. Anything that discourages cycling therefore is hurting cyclists. Helmet laws don't directly hurt cyclists, but they create a situation does hurt them.

Any activity is inherently dangerous. Helmets should reduce the danger of injury, but we don't have dramatically better cyclist injury outcomes than other countries, so the helmet law doesn't help cyclists. Paradoxes are weird like that. Welcome to the octagon :lol:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



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

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

> FREE BNA Stickers