Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby DavidS » Sat Nov 01, 2014 11:02 pm

softy wrote:
il padrone wrote:Interesting to see some data that I had missed (from 2012), confirming the impact of the MHL on cycling numbers.
The Australian population aged nine years and over grew by 58.4% between 1986 and 2006 and the daily average number of bicycle trips grew by only 20.9%, representing a net decline in cycling.

....The proportion of Australian workers riding a bicycle to work from 1986 to 2006 (measured every five years in the Census) has been largely unchanged at about 1% of journeys.


....There are three likely explanations for the per capita decline in cycling in Australia. These are the historical prioritization of the motor vehicle in urban planning, lack of investment in cycling infrastructure, and mandatory helmet legislation.
Good pickup, although the problem is even if tomorrow, they removed MHL, we don't know for sure if cycling per capita would increase. Even if it did, it could be due to natural trends, increased popularity or any other uncontrolled effect. I do believe it does inhibit casual riding, but it is just my belief. What we need is a pilot program in one area, to see if it is true. Problem is convincing governments to try. I suppose with all these high profile accidents we have buckleys chance.
At least we would be removing a law which positively discourages cycling and gives an erronous impression that it is particularly unsafe.

Worth a try I reckon, but I agree it ain't going to happen soon - but we can keep hassling to remove this silly law.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
Drizt
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 9:51 am

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

Postby Drizt » Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:19 am

What odds do you give for the law to be removed and in what time frame?

citywomble
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

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

Postby citywomble » Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:38 am

Hi,

Unless the local laws are very different over East, as opposed to WA, then helmet wearing has absolutely nothing to do with Manly or any other Council.

This is a federal requirement 'law' which is enacted by the states, who also have the power to remove it. In WA the only powers given to council Rangers on the road reserve, as far as I am aware, related to static offences such as parking and depositing things. When it comes to moving traffic offences, under the Road Traffic Code, then only the police have any authority.

Off the road reserve, in other areas such as parks covered by local laws then Rangers do have powers under those laws, which do include moving traffic offences, such as driving or riding too fast. But, those local laws do not have a MHL requirement, which is only in the Road Traffic Code, so again rangers have no powers over helmet wearing.

Methinks that councils should not have a formal view over legislation that they have no authority over.

Softy, in relation to the MHL inhibiting casual riding, you said we need a pilot program in one area to see if it is true. Well there is one and casual cycling has gone through the roof with cycling to work etc accounting for about 6% of trips.

This is because the NT government modified the helmet law to exempt riding on all footpaths and shared paths. That also allows riding on footpaths and legislates a mandatory 20 km/h speed for path riding. Helmets are still required for road riding. In my mind this is pretty conclusive evidence that removing or modifying MHL would significantly increase 'urban' or casual cycling.

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby yugyug » Sun Nov 02, 2014 9:45 am

Thanks for the response citywomble. I can clarify that, at least in one parkland in NSW, rangers do have the authority to give MHL fines. It might be possible that Manly council rangers have this power in some areas too, though I don't know.

To combine the two discussions here, if they did and if Manly council had an altogether different attitude to MHL, I wonder if Manly itself could run a no MHL pilot program in their parklands.
Last edited by yugyug on Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

hunch
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:06 am

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

Postby hunch » Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:52 pm

Quite a while ago now, reported in the same rag too, one bloke was pulled up by a Manly ranger on the beachfront path (wheeled devices only at the time, now a ped shared) and fined. I remember he had a daughter with him on the bike wearing a helmet while he wasn't and refused to give details to the ranger, which required a trip to Manly police to ascertain.

I'd expect that rigmarole and the numerous foreign nationals resident in the area riding around, would make any enforcement at best, difficult, despite any council resolutions and the number of faux outrage pieces in the beach-side Tele.

love_that_flow
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:37 am

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

Postby love_that_flow » Sun Nov 02, 2014 3:53 pm

Im sure I read somewhere years ago that more serious head traumas happen in the shower then from bicycle riding.
When do you think MHL will come into effect for showers too?

Yes I do believe in helmet use for anything on road or trail riding. However if I want to take my wife on a nice leisurely ride through the park you can bet we dont want to wear our helmets.

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby DavidS » Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:43 pm

Drizt wrote:What odds do you give for the law to be removed and in what time frame?
About the same odds I would have given for East Timor to become independent if asked in the 1980s. Things change, but they don't change on their own.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
Drizt
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 9:51 am

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

Postby Drizt » Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:45 pm

Put a time frame on it?

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby il padrone » Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:47 pm

softy wrote:What we need is a pilot program in one area, to see if it is true. Problem is convincing governments to try. I suppose with all these high profile accidents we have buckleys chance.
Already been done and useage increase confirmed. Northern Territory dropped the helmet rule for all bike paths. Police barely enforce the rule now and bicycle use is 8% of journeys in Darwin - over two-three times that of any other city in Australia.

So what other problem is holding us back?
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

softy
Posts: 1665
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

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

Postby softy » Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:14 pm

Perception, cycling is dangerous.

Whenever you read a news article "bike vs car", the first comment raised in the media is, mentioning if the rider was wearing a helmet. As if a helmet makes any difference when your hit by a car!

It is propagated that helmetless cyclists are in grave danger of being injured.

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:40 pm

softy wrote:As if a helmet makes any difference when your hit by a car!
How do you know that the writer is making that assumption?

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby DavidS » Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:53 pm

Drizt wrote:Put a time frame on it?
In the fullness of time, when sense prevails.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:13 am

DavidS wrote:
Drizt wrote:Put a time frame on it?
In the fullness of time, when sense prevails.

DS
Is that you Humphrey?

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:37 pm

fat and old wrote:
softy wrote:As if a helmet makes any difference when your hit by a car!
How do you know that the writer is making that assumption?
Basic reading comprehension :idea:

The only time you are avoiding injury wearing a helmet is when something hits your head and nothing else. I've been hit in the head by a falling branch before, and the helmet was a great idea - but the other collision (with a car) put me in hospital with sore legs, not just a sore head.

It is disingenous to comment about wearing a helmet when a rider is hit by a car, because our head is not the only thing hurt from that collision.

jasonc
Posts: 12170
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby jasonc » Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:26 pm

Xplora wrote:It is disingenous to comment about wearing a helmet when a rider is hit by a car, because our head is not the only thing hurt from that collision.
you are right...we should wear a HANS device too

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

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

Postby fat and old » Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:45 pm

Xplora wrote:
fat and old wrote:
softy wrote:As if a helmet makes any difference when your hit by a car!
How do you know that the writer is making that assumption?
Basic reading comprehension :idea:
:lol: Cute
Xplora wrote:It is disingenous to comment about wearing a helmet when a rider is hit by a car, because our head is not the only thing hurt from that collision.
Not if the writer is using the question of whether or not a helmet was being worn to show the "responsibility" of the cyclist. I'm a suspicious dude, and I always see the "wearing a helmet" line as a comment on how seriously the cyclist takes not only his own safety but how he conforms to the laws and "acceptable" behavior standards put forward by society ( represented by newspapers etc). The question of protection goes out the window then.

I drive (occasionally now) 4wd's, and am well used to unfounded media and popular bias.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

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

Postby human909 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:20 pm

fat and old wrote:Not if the writer is using the question of whether or not a helmet was being worn to show the "responsibility" of the cyclist.
Which is quite true and completely unacceptable. To suggest whether wearing a helmet has any relevance to "responsibility" is totally prejudicial and certainly naive.

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby DavidS » Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:23 pm

human909 wrote:
DavidS wrote:
Drizt wrote:Put a time frame on it?
In the fullness of time, when sense prevails.

DS
Is that you Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey ;)

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

softy
Posts: 1665
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

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

Postby softy » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:12 pm

human909 wrote:
fat and old wrote:Not if the writer is using the question of whether or not a helmet was being worn to show the "responsibility" of the cyclist.
Which is quite true and completely unacceptable. To suggest whether wearing a helmet has any relevance to "responsibility" is totally prejudicial and certainly naive.
From the articles I have read they just add, the cyclist was or wasn't wearing a helmet. They are not asking the question.

I believe it is mentioned because the helmet is topical, wheather it made a difference or not. It gives the impression that if the cyclist was not wearing the helmet they are somehow a irresponsible cyclist, irrespective of how the accident actually happened.

That is the message I get, although someone else may see it different??

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:24 pm

human909 wrote:
fat and old wrote:Not if the writer is using the question of whether or not a helmet was being worn to show the "responsibility" of the cyclist.
Which is quite true and completely unacceptable. To suggest whether wearing a helmet has any relevance to "responsibility" is totally prejudicial and certainly naive.
The responsibility of the cyclist has absolutely no bearing on the liability of the driver for that cyclist's safety from a legal perspective.

Here is the problem with a "writer" mentioning it - there is an agenda, an axe to grind, and they are not just reporting the facts. The road rules are set up to place responsibility upon all road users, and the poor attitude of most drivers means that they seek excuses for their failures. A helmet doesn't stop your bones breaking, or grazing, but it certainly distracts from the reality that cyclists do not ride into cars intentionally or recklessly. It hurts.

I agree with Human's comment. We have to call out such "reporting" as the agenda driven BS that it is. Journalism should be about promoting positive reflection on our world, not reinforcing entrenched prejudices.

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby simonn » Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:18 pm

Xplora wrote:A helmet doesn't stop your bones breaking, or grazing,
Just to be a pedant, a helmet can stop bones breaking and grazing. But it cannot stop your brain bouncing around in your head.

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby simonn » Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:21 pm

il padrone wrote:
softy wrote:What we need is a pilot program in one area, to see if it is true. Problem is convincing governments to try. I suppose with all these high profile accidents we have buckleys chance.
Already been done and useage increase confirmed. Northern Territory dropped the helmet rule for all bike paths. Police barely enforce the rule now and bicycle use is 8% of journeys in Darwin - over two-three times that of any other city in Australia.

So what other problem is holding us back?
Distance and hills...? Darwin is pretty tiny compared to other capitals.

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby Xplora » Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:55 pm

simonn wrote:
Xplora wrote:A helmet doesn't stop your bones breaking, or grazing,
Just to be a pedant, a helmet can stop bones breaking and grazing. But it cannot stop your brain bouncing around in your head.
I can let that through to the keeper :lol:

The pilot programs have been in place, QLD rides the footpath, NT rides without helmets... the simple reality is that you don't want to use police time on something trivial like a helmet. If you nerf yourself sans helmet, you probably have it coming.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby il padrone » Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:14 pm

I once saw some-one washing up without wearing washing up gloves. Totally irresponsible. Washer Uppers should do all they can to protect themselves. What sort of message do you think it sends to their kids? It's shocking. This is why I have no respect for Washer Uppers. They bring it on themselves really.

:D
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

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

Postby Mulger bill » Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:20 pm

il padrone wrote:I once saw some-one washing up without wearing washing up gloves. Totally irresponsible. Washer Uppers should do all they can to protect themselves. What sort of message do you think it sends to their kids? It's shocking. This is why I have no respect for Washer Uppers. They bring it on themselves really.

:D
I wear stab proof gloves under heat proof liners under my rubbers , can't be too careful :?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users