Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Mulger bill]

Not interested in what the CPF has to say.
What I'm interested in is YOU providing reasonably valid evidence to back up your claim.

We may be too busy to ride 800m to the shops but not too busy to drive 3km to the shopping centre and circulate for 10" looking for a spot near the door or indeed 5kms to the health club/gym/personal trainer.

Now where's my Alannis Moustache?

[Xplora]

The biggest problem here is that MHL is NOT the answer to the problems you are talking about, jc. An increase in cars means greater responsibility on the people that choose to drive. They are making it slower and more anxious to drive, not cycling. 2-3% of the traffic - and arguably a good chunk on segregated paths. I know about a third of my 42km daily commute is on paths well away from cars. If the roads are busier, then drivers have to take more care, because pedestrians don't have seatbelts to protect them. A crumple zone is definitely not preferable PPE Reducing car traffic and increasing driver responsibility is the only answer to the increase in cars. Bikes are not the problem; people aren't dying en masse from head injuries on public roads because they didn't wear bicycle helmets; it's collisions with careless cars.

All the tests I"ve seen have "I don't like helmets" sitting around 1 in 6, but stretching to 1 in 8 is fine. It's certainly a side issue, but it has direct impacts on cycling that are unacceptable, mainly that it denormalises cycling. Busy roads absorb most of the extra cars; not backstreets where cycling takes a far smaller penalty since the average speed isn't affected as much. But ultimately, you have to pull your finger out - I'm a lazy bastard looking for an excuse is the biggest unwritten reason that stops people from riding. Can you imagine people believing they needed special walking shoes just to walk to the shops? That has no tangible impact on the ability to walk? That's a helmet in a nutshell. You have a special hat that is going to achieve nothing for 9999 of 10000 journeys. My knicks have created more comfort and wellbeing than my Oracle helmet that was destroyed in my prang last year.

[high_tea]

All the tests I"ve seen have "I don't like helmets" sitting around 1 in 6, but stretching to 1 in 8 is fine. It's certainly a side issue, but it has direct impacts on cycling that are unacceptable, mainly that it denormalises cycling. Busy roads absorb most of the extra cars; not backstreets where cycling takes a far smaller penalty since the average speed isn't affected as much. But ultimately, you have to pull your finger out - I'm a lazy bastard looking for an excuse is the biggest unwritten reason that stops people from riding. Can you imagine people believing they needed special walking shoes just to walk to the shops? That has no tangible impact on the ability to walk?

As a matter of fact, I can. People believe this very thing. Walking around with bare feet is regarded as eccentric, if not downright socially unacceptable. I can't remember all the lame-brained claptrap I've heard justifying this ridiculous stance over the years, but risk has come up. But thongs are okay, despite the fact that I can't think of any risk severe enough to get my attention and minor enough that thongs will provide meaningful protection. Let me point out that this completely illogical attitude to risk persists in the absence of any de jure requirement to wear shoes.

[Baldy]

Really? Find some that isn't provided or funded by vested interests or axe grinders like that Brit lady that got thrown in here for no other reason than pot stirring.

You do know how easy it is to send an email right? Things are going well thanks for asking, I've had responses from the main ones I was after. What they do now is up to them.

Maybe you should spend less time rolling your eyes at legitimate posts and more time worrying about members making snide and irrelevant remarks about a womans weight.

[human909]

I've heard justifying this ridiculous stance over the years.

Sorry but please remind me again what this 'ridiculous stance' is? Or were simply you referring the stance that helmets should not be mandatory while riding a bicycle?

I find it odd that you see this as ridiculous when it is actually entirely normal in the rest of the world.

[high_tea]

I've heard justifying this ridiculous stance over the years.

Sorry but please remind me again what this 'ridiculous stance' is? Or were simply you referring the stance that helmets should not be mandatory while riding a bicycle?

I find it odd that you see this as ridiculous when it is actually entirely normal in the rest of the world.

I was talking about attitudes to footwear.

[Howzat]

I was talking about attitudes to footwear.

...around here, you can't change minds and you can't change subjects.

[high_tea]

I was talking about attitudes to footwear.

...around here, you can't change minds and you can't change subjects.

LOL. I believe I'll pay that...

[KonaCommuter]

An injustice

Bare-headed cyclists at 'some fault' for injuries http://m.thelocal.de/society/20130617-5 ... qus_thread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Published: 17 Jun 13 14:49 CET | Print version

Cyclists who suffer head injuries in a collision but are not wearing helmets are at least partly to blame – even if the crash itself was not their fault, a German court has ruled.

The Higher Regional Court of Schleswig Holstein state ruled that although there was no law to force cyclists to wear helmets, they so obviously offered protection against injury that all reasonably minded people would do so.

Helmets were also affordable, so there was no reason not to wear one, the court said.

The ruling came after a woman sued the driver of a car for damages following an accident. She had been riding past the car on her way to work when the door was opened, and she smashed into it, banging her head on the ground as she fell.

She suffered serious head injuries which kept her in hospital for two months, and needed further treatment afterwards. She asked the court to rule on the car owner's fault in the incident, so she could pursue her for damages.

But the judge ruled that the injuries she suffered were 20 percent the fault of the cyclist for not wearing a helmet. She said a helmet would not have prevented the accident but that the cyclist had failed to take reasonable measures to protect herself because she was not wearing one.

"Cyclists these days are exposed to a particular risk of injury in daily traffic. The traffic these days is particularly tight, with motorized vehicles dominating and cyclists often only seen by drivers as hindering the free flow of traffic," the judge's verdict read.

She said there was no serious doubt that helmets were effective protection against head injury and that they were affordable – meaning that any reasonable person would buy and wear one.

[high_tea]

A somewhat similar ruling from the UK: Reynolds v Strutt and Parker [2011] EWHC 2263. I've mislaid my copy of "German Torts Law for Dummies", so a discussion of the exact similarities or differences is beyond me. Both cases seem to take the view that helmet efficacy is well settled. A discussion of how applicable the UK case's reasoning is in Australia is, likewise, beyond me...

[citywomble]

But the judge ruled that the injuries she suffered were 20 percent the fault of the cyclist for not wearing a helmet

Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?

Now apply the same precedents to a pedestrian suing a cyclist or motorist, or even to a motorist suing another motorist after a traffic accident. It is just as proven that a helmet will mitigate head injuries to both pedestrians and car occupants, so what is to stop a lawyer arguing the same for their defendant and what possible grounds would the judge have for rejecting that precedent too.

MHL for pedestrians and car occupants?

Just shows how 'silly' it is to place any blame on the cyclist here.

[human909]

Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?

Great point.

It is applicable to cyclists because society dictates that it is appropriate, practical and sensible to wear a helmet while cycling while it is not appropriate practical and sensible to wear a helmet while driving a car.

While law loves to consider itself impartial, it generally is not. It is guided by social norms even if those social norms impinge on the very freedoms the law is supposed to uphold. In short the law is an ass. Such a ruling would never occur in a country like The Netherlands simply because not wearing helmets while cycling is considered very normal. In Australia if it came to a civil suit you'd be lucky to get anything if you weren't wearing a helmet.

[citywomble]

It is applicable to cyclists because society dictates that it is appropriate, practical and sensible to wear a helmet while cycling while it is not appropriate practical and sensible to wear a helmet while driving a car.

Why not just as appropriate, practical or sensible for car drivers, or pedestrians for that matter?

Even at 252 pages it seems we have a lot more potential for 'mass debating' here.

[human909]

Why not just as appropriate, practical or sensible for car drivers, or pedestrians for that matter?

I was just stating the reason. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

[citywomble]

Yup, I realised that, human.

I agree with you and was merely following on from your stated reason with the fact that, unless we challenge those societal norms that are ill advised and biased, we will continue to retain or add to the ill advised regulations (such as MHLs) which do so mich harm to the very elements of society they purport to protect.

Although, in the case of MHLs, the evidence tends towards vested interests (motoring) and diversion from properly funded solutions (government) combining to sell an easy fix to the public. Not only that but state governments were coerced into translating the bad concept into law by federal 'bullying' with threats to withhold road funding if not legislated.

MHLs came about for all the wrong reasons and now continue to be justified by those that have been seduced into accepting them while failing to realise the harm they actually do.

[Xplora]

Until they refuse to pay money for parents who refuse to immunise their children (despite conscientious objection) then this is a farce. Immunisation is MUCH more serious. Until they ban cults (as a Christian, I appreciate that atheists would find this ironic that I would raise this), until they ban uber fatty food for BMIs higher than 30, then protecting my head for the benefit of myself and society is an absolute nonsense.

Did you know that you can get a note from your doctor saying "the parents refuse to immunise" and they get their FTB despite a clause to ensure immunisation? It's a laughable pisstake. I can appreciate the proMHL argument... but it's not just and fair.

[high_tea]

But the judge ruled that the injuries she suffered were 20 percent the fault of the cyclist for not wearing a helmet

Some interesting considerations here. Assuming that this sets a precedent why is it applicable only to cyclists?

It doesn't. One, there's no doctrine of stare decisis(sp?) in Germany (or so I'm told). Two, German decisions aren't binding on Australian courts. Three, I wouldn't assume what the ratio of the case was without reading the actual judgment, and I don't read German.

[high_tea]

Until they refuse to pay money for parents who refuse to immunise their children (despite conscientious objection) then this is a farce. Immunisation is MUCH more serious. Until they ban cults (as a Christian, I appreciate that atheists would find this ironic that I would raise this), until they ban uber fatty food for BMIs higher than 30, then protecting my head for the benefit of myself and society is an absolute nonsense.

Did you know that you can get a note from your doctor saying "the parents refuse to immunise" and they get their FTB despite a clause to ensure immunisation? It's a laughable pisstake. I can appreciate the proMHL argument... but it's not just and fair.

I feel a certain deja vu. Sadly, this argument has not improved with age. No, the lack of some other hypothetical "better" law doesn't make MHLs morally unsustainable. Just like it didn't last time this came up.

[human909]

I feel a certain deja vu. Sadly, this argument has not improved with age. No, the lack of some other hypothetical "better" law doesn't make MHLs morally unsustainable. Just like it didn't last time this came up.

MHLs is "unstainable" of its own accord. (I think you mean indefensible) It fails to even meet the narrow objectives of improving cycling safety. Let alone meeting the wider cost-benefit objectives.

The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.

[il padrone]

MHLs is "unstainable" of its own accord. (I think you mean indefensible) It fails to even meet the narrow objectives of improving cycling safety. Let alone meeting the wider cost-benefit objectives.

The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.

Riding my bike in Italian and French cities I am seeing how true this is.

[high_tea]

I feel a certain deja vu. Sadly, this argument has not improved with age. No, the lack of some other hypothetical "better" law doesn't make MHLs morally unsustainable. Just like it didn't last time this came up.

MHLs is "unstainable" of its own accord. (I think you mean indefensible) It fails to even meet the narrow objectives of improving cycling safety. Let alone meeting the wider cost-benefit objectives.

The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.

Oh, I don't know. I hear tell they're poking along all right in the NT. My point, though, was just that all this carry-on about life jackets and helmets for motorists and vaccination and fatty food and whatnot is a non sequitur.

[queequeg]

I feel a certain deja vu. Sadly, this argument has not improved with age. No, the lack of some other hypothetical "better" law doesn't make MHLs morally unsustainable. Just like it didn't last time this came up.

MHLs is "unstainable" of its own accord. (I think you mean indefensible) It fails to even meet the narrow objectives of improving cycling safety. Let alone meeting the wider cost-benefit objectives.

The only clear metric MHLs has clearly achieved is reducing cycling numbers.

Oh, I don't know. I hear tell they're poking along all right in the NT. My point, though, was just that all this carry-on about life jackets and helmets for motorists and vaccination and fatty food and whatnot is a non sequitur.

Yup, but the same arguments used to introduce MHL could one day result in MHL for other equally "dangerous activities", like toddlers learning to walk.

http://www.thudguard.com.au/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[high_tea]

Sigh. No, regulation of pedestrians is another matter entirely. For the same reasons as last time and the time before that.

[human909]

My point, though, was just that all this carry-on about life jackets and helmets for motorists and vaccination and fatty food and whatnot is a non sequitur.

How do you figure that. They are all about taking away people's freedom in the interest of safety.

Sigh. No, regulation of pedestrians is another matter entirely. For the same reasons as last time and the time before that.

Every time somebody enjoys a logic parallel you say it is "another matter entirely". The fact that it isn't. The debate of freedom vs public good is not a new debate. Pretending that MHLs sits in a unique frame of benefits vs costs is a little childish.

[high_tea]

I object specifically to the idea of regulating pedestrians. That's the special case, not MHLs.