Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

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 » Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:21 pm

Well, Xplora's post is confusing. I have no idea what he meant by consequences.

As for lowered speed limits - yes, the general experience is that they produce a safer road environment.


BTW, set a little time aside to watch that Poynton video. It is 15 mins but it is very worthwhile to see the problems, the scheme, and the results.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

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 » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:56 pm

:lol: I'm coming down with laryngitis or something, it doesn't read well at the end at all.

I frame my position on lower car speed limits (which I don't really want, I'm a leadfoot) in this manner.

Cars (and similarly buses, trucks) are the single biggest danger on our roads, to the users of cars and people near them. This is due to physics.

Human reaction time, and cognitive capacity, is extremely limited and will not improve because of the slowness of evolutionary change. Humans are capable of controlling a car, but only to a limited extent. The WISDOM of the human animal in serious bunch situations is similarly limited. I've been driving down the M2 quite a bit lately. WITHOUT EXCEPTION the best traffic flow is directly connected to space between the cars. You have 3 seconds to the car in front, you can react, and adapt, to anything they do. This is not possible at 1 second, even at 20kmh. This leads to halting, "sudden" hazards like the car in front slamming on their brakes, which happen all the time and won't stop because we don't have perfect perception. Note that drivers manage heavy traffic better with curves or seeing the next 500m due to a dip in the road etc. They lack the capacity to always be patient, even when it is plainly true that giving space and allowing the traffic to flow more increases real speed.

Given that humans can't actually control a car at an advanced level (like they would walking), the only solution is to reduce speeds so they can equalise responses with cyclists and pedestrians. A cyclist can react so much quicker than a car simply because they aren't going as fast to begin with, despite worse acceleration, braking etc.

Thing is, this isn't about the majority of drivers - more people walk near the road than drive on it. Bus passengers need to walk to the bus stop, or to the train station. We all cross the road. Many drive, but their right to speed doesn't equal my right to live, which is at risk every time you turn the key of your car. It's unlikely that someone will die from your car, but it is virtually impossible to die walking somewhere or riding somewhere at a moderate pace. Death by car is much more likely than death by footpath for everyone in or near that car. Consider a bunch of zero's posts - he has a very interesting approach to the rights of humans on the road. It is very clear that we've actually built in discrimination against pedestrians and cyclists in our infrastructure - there is plenty of parking for cyclists at any location, but we have instead spent enormous cash laying roads that cars use to park on?! It's rather backwards when you think about it - it's changed the way I think about resource management entirely.

My comment on consequences is this - we can't make a law saying "don't make mistakes". "Don't look at the hot girl and crash". "Don't date the nasty bloke/pig". "Don't eat the gluten free pizza" (it's gross). We can only make laws stating "if this result happens, you will be charged". What crime is worthy of the cyclist who falls over? It seems inappropriate to charge a rider for making a mistake. "Failure to take due care" is typically a toothless type of crime. Has the cyclist failed to take care when they don't wear a helmet? Not really. No accident, no issue. Has the cyclist failed society because they took a risk riding a bike? Has the pedestrian failed society because they took a risk crossing the road at the wrong time and got hit? What could we do to manage those risks? Well, the cyclist's risk is quite miniscule for the most part. If they want to go crazy and ride at 50kmh, then they would be wise to wear a helmet, but that's the same for anything - you won't drive a car without a seatbelt at 50kmh, but are you causingissues driving 5kmh without a belt?

We have a general tendency to overreach with regulation when it comes to risk. You should work to minimise risk, but I've hit my head twice riding and the helmet did nothing as I planted my face into the pavement, the cure for serious bike accidents is to moderate the speed for the conditions, not wear a helmet. We reduce the car speeds, to a level where humans have a good chance of managing the car then we wipe out most cyclist deaths and injuries. The cyclist goes too fast? Hospital visit for the other rider and the pedestrians. Nothing happens to the car. Car goes too fast? Every single human near that car, and buildings/wildlife/etc is hospitalised or killed or destroyed. A pedestrian can dodge a bike, they can't dodge a car. The cyclist also suffers in a prang they caused, not just the 3rd party victim. Doesn't happen with a car.

We have to open our mind to the possibilities for appropriate regulation - humans are capable, to a point, of managing all this themselves, but we aren't physically adapted to car impacts or driving conditions, so let's level the playing field. If the mobile armchair experience isn't enough for a driver, that's just too bad - your comfort and convenience isn't more important than my life, and my family's lives. I trust you all believe the reverse is true.

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 26, 2014 11:42 am

This Bolt article proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... 3ac0f9743a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I liked this quote.

It can nag us about our brittle skulls or our fat gut, but it cannot yet force us to both lug our helmets and pedal its bikes. Those deserted stands of blue tell the tale.

This actually sums up the role of the State in a free democracy better than I managed to in my last MHL post. The Government can persuade, but it cannot actually force you to do anything unless you are incarcerated. The Government can't make you wear a helmet, it can only threaten to fine you if you don't wear one. Our medical system will not refuse to treat you if you didn't wear a helmet (similar to lung cancer for smokers etc). It might offer preference in triage, but that goes for every presentation at hospital or the GP.

We end up with a system, in my eyes, where the Government cleans up the mess, and asks you to not drop chips on the carpet, but they can't stop you bringing Doritos and they can't stop you eating them. The best way for the Government to reduce the mess making is to install easy clean carpet, and suggest you eat on the tiles instead - telling you that Doritos and salsa is banned is really an affront to the idea of a free society. The State simply does not have the reach to force you to comply in every instance. They rely on my self control to comply. In some respects, this is precisely why "slow the cars down" is my suggested movement forward, because the State can't actually safely slow a car down if the driver doesn't want to slow down. High speed pursuit is a massive no no for the cops these days because the risk just isn't worth it. Better to keep things calm and wait for the petrol to run out.

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 » Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:40 pm

Xplora wrote:This Bolt article proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... 3ac0f9743a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
andrew bolt aye? Clock won't ever be right if it's missing it's brain :wink:

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 26, 2014 1:09 pm

Ignore the author, I think the guy is a twit as well, but he makes valid points in that article, summarised by the quote. If you want to rely on personality to justify acceptance of an opinion, you get the utter cluster*&^ that has been the politics since 2006 in Australia. :idea:

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 26, 2014 4:27 pm

The one area that Blot has been half-human on has been his comments on cycling, mandatory helmets, and the Bikeshare schemes.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

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

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:26 pm

I have pondered if there is some sort of halfway mark. For example;

A. Helmets are mandatory for higher risk activities. The definition of what's high risk and whats low risk would be a debate in itself, so lets take the ends. High: Racing and riding on busy roads. Low: riding along a bike path thru a park

B. Helmets are not mandatory for general use but there is a active campaign for their usage

I can see a lot of arguments for and against and valid points for both
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
London Boy
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:43 pm

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

Postby London Boy » Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:53 pm

il padrone wrote:
fat and old wrote:That will certainly improve safety outcomes for cyclists....but at the expense of the majority. Why would any government legislate to advantage a minority?
Just a little bit outrageous to suggest that we don't bother looking after the welfare of minorities. Try doing that with disabled people, or new immigrants....
Speaking as the husband of a disabled woman (T3 paraplegic and currently recovering from cancer treatment) I can say quite clearly and authoritatively that we do not bother looking after that minority.

The legislation exists, but its enforcement is piecemeal at best. Local authorities make half-hearted attempts to make things accessible, but don't really engage properly to understand the kinds of things that make life difficult for disabled people. And so on. We should not be surprised at this.

mick243
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:44 am

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

Postby mick243 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:12 pm

mikesbytes wrote:I have pondered if there is some sort of halfway mark. For example;

A. Helmets are mandatory for higher risk activities. The definition of what's high risk and whats low risk would be a debate in itself, so lets take the ends. High: Racing and riding on busy roads. Low: riding along a bike path thru a park

B. Helmets are not mandatory for general use but there is a active campaign for their usage

I can see a lot of arguments for and against and valid points for both
The problem here, you are suggesting to mandate helmets where they help the least, and make them not required where they help the most.

If you apply logic knowing how helmets work, make them mandatory on the park paths (where they work best, and fools think they can't get hurt), and make them optional on the main roads (because a helmet can't help when an 18 wheeler runs over your head...)



But in reality, I can't ever see the law being changed, because if someone tries, someone else will invoke "won't someone think of the children" (mulgers law?)......


Wear the lid, and ride on.......

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 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:16 pm

I can understand helmets for racing (even if I don't believe they should be mandatory there either - but UCI has rules, and we follow those rules), but busy roads? The justification for MHL is not the likelihood of impact, but the severity of the result in impact regardless how unlikely that is. Cars hurt, and arguably there is more risk in less busy roads of the severe injury because the rider is less likely to be noticed in a quiet area. My prangs have not been in busy road areas but quiet areas where a road/obstacle caused the damage.

I can be in favour of the Government strongly recommending helmets - we do the same with cigarettes, detrimental impact to society is not the key reason we ban anything ;)

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

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

Postby yugyug » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:33 pm

mick243 wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:I have pondered if there is some sort of halfway mark. For example;

A. Helmets are mandatory for higher risk activities. The definition of what's high risk and whats low risk would be a debate in itself, so lets take the ends. High: Racing and riding on busy roads. Low: riding along a bike path thru a park

B. Helmets are not mandatory for general use but there is a active campaign for their usage

I can see a lot of arguments for and against and valid points for both
The problem here, you are suggesting to mandate helmets where they help the least, and make them not required where they help the most.

If you apply logic knowing how helmets work, make them mandatory on the park paths (where they work best, and fools think they can't get hurt), and make them optional on the main roads (because a helmet can't help when an 18 wheeler runs over your head...)
.
This is the bitter irony of the MHL. But still, the risk of head injury on park paths is very low (cycling is safer than walking by km travelled) so it doesn't then follow that its reasonable to maintain a MHL for that kind of riding, even if that is where helmets work best.

In reality, the MHL can be repealed, but I think it can only happen piecemeal. First, its best to ignore the argument helmets work best for low speed riding (its counter-intuitive anyway) and advocate to relax the law for shared paths and footpaths (making footpath riding legal in all states is important for this because it provides a fully legal way to go from A to B without a helmet). Secondly, keep the law for kids, thus avoiding the "think of the children" conundrum. It sucks for kids, especially as we should want more of them riding to school, but they grow up, and anyway once the law has exceptions like this, just like in the NT now, the cops will stop giving a crap about enforcement and then we can all go about ridig helmetless in practice. If we choose.

I suppose then the MHL may not be fully repealed, just made redundant. Just like it was technically illegal for women to wear pants in Paris until 2010 or something.

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 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:27 am

Xplora wrote:II can be in favour of the Government strongly recommending helmets - we do the same with cigarettes, detrimental impact to society is not the key reason we ban anything ;)
Then we need to have a tax base as strong as cigarettes to take advantage of. Taxing the helmet won't work.....obviously :lol: . So lets tax the bicycle at purchase then :idea:

Really got to look at long term consequences there x :lol:

high_tea
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
Contact:

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:41 am

mikesbytes wrote:I have pondered if there is some sort of halfway mark. For example;

A. Helmets are mandatory for higher risk activities. The definition of what's high risk and whats low risk would be a debate in itself, so lets take the ends. High: Racing and riding on busy roads. Low: riding along a bike path thru a park

B. Helmets are not mandatory for general use but there is a active campaign for their usage

I can see a lot of arguments for and against and valid points for both
Point (A) sounds a lot like the more relaxed MHLs in forcforce in the NT. Which work pretty well, so it is said.

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

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

Postby human909 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:43 am

high_tea wrote:Point (A) sounds a lot like the more relaxed MHLs in forcforce in the NT. Which work pretty well, so it is said.
It works pretty well insofar as it doesn't work at all. MHL of any sort is not enforced in the NT. Oh and while we are at it which state capital has the highest rate of cycling? No surprises is Darwin.

high_tea
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
Contact:

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:00 am

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:Point (A) sounds a lot like the more relaxed MHLs in forcforce in the NT. Which work pretty well, so it is said.
It works pretty well insofar as it doesn't work at all. MHL of any sort is not enforced in the NT. Oh and while we are at it which state capital has the highest rate of cycling? No surprises is Darwin.
Got a citation to support your no-enforcement claim?

mick243
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:44 am

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

Postby mick243 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:12 am

I was in darwin a few years back...... dont recall seeing many helmets on cyclists, but I also DO recall much better cycling conditions (where I was, nice wide streets, nowhere near as much traffic, nobody throwing stuff out of cars at me, nobody swerving tradie utes at me.....

bear in mind I was only there a few week, and a sample size of 1 (I was wearing my lid, but I didnt see anyone get pulled up for not wearing one..... I also noted plenty of "drunk and disorderlies" not get pinged either, so maybe its just lax enforcement all round?)

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

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

Postby human909 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:04 pm

high_tea wrote:Got a citation to support your no-enforcement claim?
Haven't we been through this before? We are still talking about the same Darwin. Here is a citation for you:

Ok, so [MHL in Darwin] not being enforced much. Anecdotally speaking.
Gee, that sounds like MHL relaxation! And it sounds like it's working! Which was my original claim.

high_tea (2014)

It is seemed that this high_tea fellow accepted that it is the widespread experience of Darwin cyclists that MHL is generally not being enforce in Darwin. While he maintained his argument that helmet relaxation was working, it comes down to a legal discussion of whether a law is working when it is not enforced at all. :wink:

high_tea
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
Contact:

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:34 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:Got a citation to support your no-enforcement claim?
Haven't we been through this before? We are still talking about the same Darwin. Here is a citation for you:

Ok, so [MHL in Darwin] not being enforced much. Anecdotally speaking.
Gee, that sounds like MHL relaxation! And it sounds like it's working! Which was my original claim.

high_tea (2014)

It is seemed that this high_tea fellow accepted that it is the widespread experience of Darwin cyclists that MHL is generally not being enforce in Darwin. While he maintained his argument that helmet relaxation was working, it comes down to a legal discussion of whether a law is working when it is not enforced at all. :wink:
So no, you don't have a citation or anything, just some anecdotes.

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

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

Postby human909 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:02 pm

high_tea wrote:So no, you don't have a citation or anything, just some anecdotes.
:roll: Seriously mate. Go up there and check it out.

(But since your pedantic pants on then let me point out that a citation was provided, your words. Furthermore anecdotes can still be a citation. In fact there is plenty of reviewed research papers that rely on anecdotes.)

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 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:15 pm

Seriously guys, Darwin cannot be realistically compared to any of the Eastern states capitals.....nor even the larger regional centres. It barely compares to Perth. MHL enforcement would be very low on the scale of things to do, and cycling uptake would not be directly attributable to whether or not you have to wear a lid. The relationship between climate, layout of the area and accessibility of services has everything to do with it, along with a healthy dose of socio-economic reasons.

Don't ask for citations, I'm not Wikipedia. Go live there a while, experience it for yourself :)

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

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

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:41 pm

Interesting argument about where a helmet is effective and when it isn't vs perception
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

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 Dec 10, 2014 3:58 pm

high_tea wrote:So no, you don't have a citation or anything, just some anecdotes.
Citation here - applies throughout NT as far as I am aware:
http://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/live/your-c ... ycle-paths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If 17 years or over, you must wear a helmet when riding on the road and when using on-road cycleways
thus on off-road paths (and footpaths which are legal to ride on in the NT) you may ride with no helmet.

And a bit more:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1114.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
On 31st March 1994 the NT Minister for Transport announced an amendment to the law to permit cyclists over the age of 17 to ride without a helmet "along footpaths or on cycle paths which are not on roads". This was in response to a public campaign against the law, backed by petitions signed by 8% of NT's population. The compromise to continue to require helmets on roads was to avoid a penalty from the Federal Government. There was less public support for rescinding the law for children.....

....In 2001, only 75 cyclists were hospitalised – the lowest number pro-rata population for any Australian state or territory. (ABC, 2004)

For most road users, the Northern Territory has the worst injury rate in Australia. The sole exception is cyclists, for whom the serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory for all cycling. (Berry and Harrison, 2008)
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

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 Dec 10, 2014 4:08 pm

fat and old wrote: cycling uptake would not be directly attributable to whether or not you have to wear a lid. The relationship between climate, layout of the area and accessibility of services has everything to do with it, along with a healthy dose of socio-economic reasons.
Yes, Darwin has an awful climate for cycling - 32C and high humidity, tropical storms, wonderful (NOT). As for it's layout I have not been there but I do believe that the urban area is actually very widely spread out for a city of its population - ie. low density and small overall population; never a big incentive for large cycling numbers. And the CBD is a waaaayyyy over to the west side of town - not central at all for a cyclist.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

high_tea
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
Contact:

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

Postby high_tea » Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:47 pm

il padrone wrote:
high_tea wrote:So no, you don't have a citation or anything, just some anecdotes.
Citation here - applies throughout NT as far as I am aware:
http://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/live/your-c ... ycle-paths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If 17 years or over, you must wear a helmet when riding on the road and when using on-road cycleways
thus on off-road paths (and footpaths which are legal to ride on in the NT) you may ride with no helmet.
I was referring to the bold and still unsubstantiated claim that MHLs are not enforced in the NT.

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

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

Postby yugyug » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:20 pm

high_tea wrote:.
I was referring to the bold and still unsubstantiated claim that MHLs are not enforced in the NT.
High tea the link il padrone provided to cyclehelmets.org notes that the law is not often enforced. You may like to check that page's references.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users