Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[human909]

Great. I'm glad the anti regulation of pedestrians has your support. It is a pity that you don't show the same support to cyclists being forced to wear helmets.

[Xplora]

I honestly can't follow the logic that pedestrians enjoy an unalienable human right when utilising public roads, yet cyclists do not, given the risk factors and injury rates.

I dislike a lot of laws, but I can accept them if they are equitable - much in the same way that I can accept whoever forms Government in September, despite being upset and frustrated by that. MHL is garbage, but if you forced everyone to wear the headgear, then I'd accept that its not unjustified discrimination.

Equality is the key.

[high_tea]

The idea that walking around should be regulated as little as possible is controversial now? Seriously?

[human909]

The idea that walking around should be regulated as little as possible is controversial now? Seriously?

From what I can see there are alot rules regulating people walking around our roads. Almost as many as there are for cyclists.

[Mulger bill]

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

Well, seeing as they ignore red men while head down in smartphone land on a regular basis, why not make the practice a legal as well as social norm?

I like a good analogy, it offers a chance to broaden the philosophical debate while maintaining the central theme.

"Is it time for pedestrians to be registered and made to wear PPE?" DIscuss...

[high_tea]

The idea that walking around should be regulated as little as possible is controversial now? Seriously?

From what I can see there are alot rules regulating people walking around our roads. Almost as many as there are for cyclists.

Nope. About a dozen actually, cf nineteen or so cyclist-specific ones and a couple of hundred more that apply to vehicles in general.

[Xplora]

They are already registered, they just don't know it. You haven't worked in customer service for any organisations with 20 million customers before have you?

HT, I'm incredulous that we are considering regulating walking, but 909 is right. We already DO on the "road related areas". What stretch is it to add the Pedestrian Protective Equipment? The danger to cyclists is cars, so put your effort into the cars and teach people to share better. Don't put the Emperor's New Magic Hat on cyclists and insist that it's acceptable when it is linked to greater danger for riders. We are DYING out there despite helmets because cyclists are a vulnerable target taking a denormalised transport option.

[high_tea]

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

Well, seeing as they ignore red men while head down in smartphone land on a regular basis, why not make the practice a legal as well as social norm?

I like a good analogy, it offers a chance to broaden the philosophical debate while maintaining the central theme.

"Is it time for pedestrians to be registered and made to wear PPE?" DIscuss...

"Is it time for pedestrians to be licensed like dogs, with little discs hanging from their (mandatory)dog collar, and made to wear PVC? Discuss, ideally with pictures."

EDIT: Family-friendly pictures, natch.

[high_tea]

They are already registered, they just don't know it. You haven't worked in customer service for any organisations with 20 million customers before have you?

HT, I'm incredulous that we are considering regulating walking, but 909 is right. We already DO on the "road related areas". What stretch is it to add the Pedestrian Protective Equipment?

This is completely nuts. Even by the standards of this thread.

[human909]

This is completely nuts. Even by the standards of this thread.

I agree. It is all absurd. Just like the justifications for mandatory helmet laws.

[citywomble]

High tea,

I am sure I am not alone in beginning to despair you will ever see reason.

Do you actually read all of what you write about?

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.

Idiot, The NT is not an example of how they're getting along alright with MHLs. They have removed MHL for much of cycling so they are evidence that removing them does actually reverse the reduction in cycling brought about by MHLs.

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

We need to start thinking of potential cyclists as enhanced pedestrians as typified in the acronym POBSO. Given its the same person either walking or enhanced walking as a POBSO, the issue of MHLs being imposed on one form is ridiculous.

A motor vehicle is very different as it requires a licence (to operate registered dangerous equipment). Both walking AND cycling do not require licensing or registration and are often interacting with each other with the same injury risk. Why apply PPE to just one? Please provide a reasoned argument.

[high_tea]

High tea,

I am sure I am not alone in beginning to despair you will ever see reason.

Do you actually read all of what you write about?

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.

Idiot, The NT is not an example of how they're getting along alright with MHLs. They have removed MHL for much of cycling so they are evidence that removing them does actually reverse the reduction in cycling brought about by MHLs.

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

We need to start thinking of potential cyclists as enhanced pedestrians as typified in the acronym POBSO. Given its the same person either walking or enhanced walking as a POBSO, the issue of MHLs being imposed on one form is ridiculous.

A motor vehicle is very different as it requires a licence (to operate registered dangerous equipment). Both walking AND cycling do not require licensing or registration and are often interacting with each other with the same injury risk. Why apply PPE to just one? Please provide a reasoned argument.

Well now here's something interesting in amongst the ad hominem and bizarre mental contortions. It almost sounds like you want to declare a bicycle a WRD. That would, as I understand the law, dispense with the requirement to wear a helmet. Among a lot of other things, but okay, it's worth talking about.

[coffeeandwine]

Came across this study by Uni of NSW on effectiveness of helmets.

"Crashing without a helmet exposes the head to accelerations and forces – or loads – up to 9.5 times greater than with a helmet and so greatly increases the risk of head, skull and brain injury, according to a detailed biomechanical study published in the journal Traffic Injury Prevention

“Our findings confirm that bicycle helmets certified to AS/NZS 2063 do indeed work as intended and are effective in reducing linear and angular head accelerations, as well as impact force,” says the lead author of the study, Dr Andrew McIntosh...[snip]...

Dr McIntosh is an adjunct Associate Professor at UNSW’s Transport and Road Safety Research Group and the Monash Injury Research Institute at Monash University...[snip]...

“When you look at injury risk, an unprotected head is likely to suffer concussion even dropping only half a metre while you are stationary,” says Dr McIntosh. “As the height of the drop and the horizontal speed increase, so does the risk of skull and brain injury.”

“We found that a helmeted head, however, is protected against serious injury until the most severe impacts in our study: even with a drop of 1.5 m and a speed of 25 km/h the helmet has an important protective effect.”

[Ross]

coffeandwine - I don't think it's the effectiveness of a bike helmet that's in dispute, it's the part about being "forced" to wear one that seems to be the issue.

[ozzymac]

coffeandwine - I don't think it's the effectiveness of a bike helmet that's in dispute, it's the part about being "forced" to wear one that seems to be the issue.

Is there much difference in being FORCED as you say to use seatbelts or vests while boating?

We are forced to do lots of things in life that some might not want to.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

[high_tea]

coffeandwine - I don't think it's the effectiveness of a bike helmet that's in dispute, it's the part about being "forced" to wear one that seems to be the issue.

Is there much difference in being FORCED as you say to use seatbelts or vests while boating?

We are forced to do lots of things in life that some might not want to.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

Trouble is, MHL efficacy is not well settled. 'Course, you could talk about improving the law rather than repealing it. I don't see much interest in that discussion from the frequent posters in this thread. Pity...

[citywomble]

Ozzymac said:

I

s there much difference in being FORCED as you say to use seatbelts or vests while boating?

We are forced to do lots of things in life that some might not want to.

Yes, actually there is.

First, a seatbelt is attached to the car so its always there
Second it locks away in the car so you leave it there
Third it fixes you to the car which is not good on a bike
Fourth it keeps you inside a protective box
Fifth it protects/acts on all of your body not just the head
Sixth it actually works
Seventh it is proven to be very effective when used in conjunction with a car, no good on a bike or for peds.
Finally, it does not deter from using a car (although some may still opt not to belt up) nor did it reduce car use when introduced

With helmets
First, it's not attached to the bike so you have to bring it with you
Second it doesnt lock away in the bike so you can't leave it there
Third it is fixed to your head so also increases axial stresses
Fourth you don't have a protective box to be protected by
Fifth it only protects the head and not the rest of the body
Sixth it has very limited demonstrated benefit in major accidents
Seventh a helmet protect equally in all circumstances, car, bike, pedestrian, so why discriminate for cyclists.
Finally, it is known to deter using a bike (although some may still opt not to do one) but it demonstrably DID reduce bike use when introduced (by up to 30%)

Now for life jackets/pfd/vests
First, yes you do have to PROVIDE one for all users in a boat
Second, except for very limited circumstances you ARE NOT REQUIRED to wear it
Third, wearing is personal choice so you can wear it if you wish
Fourth, there are circumstances where it is better not to wear one
Finally, the flexibility with mandatory PFDs (not being made to wear it) is perhaps an example of how MHL use could be modified - as already done in Darwin N.T.

[human909]

If we are talking about mandatory life jackets then this is quite relevant.

[high_tea]

Ozzymac said:

I

s there much difference in being FORCED as you say to use seatbelts or vests while boating?

We are forced to do lots of things in life that some might not want to.

Yes, actually there is.

First, a seatbelt is attached to the car so its always there
Second it locks away in the car so you leave it there
Third it fixes you to the car which is not good on a bike
Fourth it keeps you inside a protective box
Fifth it protects/acts on all of your body not just the head
Sixth it actually works
Seventh it is proven to be very effective when used in conjunction with a car, no good on a bike or for peds.
Finally, it does not deter from using a car (although some may still opt not to belt up) nor did it reduce car use when introduced

With helmets
First, it's not attached to the bike so you have to bring it with you
Second it doesnt lock away in the bike so you can't leave it there
Third it is fixed to your head so also increases axial stresses
Fourth you don't have a protective box to be protected by
Fifth it only protects the head and not the rest of the body
Sixth it has very limited demonstrated benefit in major accidents
Seventh a helmet protect equally in all circumstances, car, bike, pedestrian, so why discriminate for cyclists.
Finally, it is known to deter using a bike (although some may still opt not to do one) but it demonstrably DID reduce bike use when introduced (by up to 30%)

Now for life jackets/pfd/vests
First, yes you do have to PROVIDE one for all users in a boat
Second, except for very limited circumstances you ARE NOT REQUIRED to wear it
Third, wearing is personal choice so you can wear it if you wish
Fourth, there are circumstances where it is better not to wear one
Finally, the flexibility with mandatory PFDs (not being made to wear it) is perhaps an example of how MHL use could be modified - as already done in Darwin N.T.

(emphasis in original)

Nice post.

I don't agree with quite a bit of it, but that's here nor there. The basic point, that comparing MHLs with other mandatory-PPE laws (for want of a better term), isn't particularly helpful is a good one. And the fact that there are two flavours of MHLs in Australia - those in force in the NT(reference keeps being made to Darwin, but I understood it was the whole territory?) and those in the rest of Australia is one that could, I think, do with a bit more attention.

[ozzymac]

The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.

Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

[human909]

The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.

Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?

[winstonw]

The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.

Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?

In case you've been asleep for the last 30 years, it is driving culture and lack of infrastructure that is harming Australian cycling.
We don't share anything in common with Holland or Denmark re these two things, so there's no comparison.
As for DAI, I suggest you take in the views of all medical specialists and their research, not just those who insouciantly support your prejudice.

[ozzymac]

The point I am making is there are always rules that some people won't mind and others just get a bee in there bonnet because they are made to do something they don't want to.

Nobody is a disputing that. By why would you support a rule that harms Australian cycling and makes you less safe on our roads?

How the hell does wearing a helmet make me less safe on the roads?

That is the weirdest thing I have ever read!!


Cheers

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

[Xplora]

^^ Because there are rules that some people have given absolutely no thought to, no consideration of alternatives and don't understand that people that disagree with them are in fact the majority and have evidence to prove they are correct.

If you want to see an Australian system in place that isn't replicated across the world, look at our taxation. We have some of the highest accountant usage for income tax returns in the whole world, while being one of the most technologically proactive. Why isn't Australian taxation easier? Maybe the same reason why MHL hasn't been repealed - because Australian politicians would prefer to keep bad laws than take responsibility for reforming them.

ozzymac, you should read the thread a bit more. Yes, it IS weird. But it's true.

winstow, I would suggest you campaign for changes to driver culture. Speeding and drink driving were the normal only 30 years ago. Very different attitudes these days for these things. Perhaps if manslaughter charges were handed out more readily when drivers killed people, people would feel differently about the possibility of going to court and missing out on their own life, and reconsider the danger of taking away someone else's. It is a minority of drivers, but a very dangerous one. Helmets don't stop you getting hurt from close shaves.

[citywomble]

How the hell does wearing a helmet make me less safe on the roads?

That is the weirdest thing I have ever read!!

Ozzymac,

This thread is over 250 pages long and the answers to your question have been provided many many times.

Please go read some of the previous posts or some decent research on google before you ask any more stoopid questions.

Try starting with DAI, risk compensation, confirmation bias, or even just MHLs for starters (include "and helmets" in the search).

Evidence when they were introduced shows a drop in cycling, as a direct result, so: safety in numbers perhaps?