Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

User avatar
Summernight
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Summernight » Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:17 pm

il padrone wrote:Bah.... no need for a helmet when riding a horse!


Image




:oops: :oops: :P :mrgreen:
Those are the Western riders I was talking about. :mrgreen:
human909 wrote:
Xplora wrote:Clearly the horse lobby holds more sway than the bicycle lobby.
No. They have just kept a lower profile due to their smaller numbers.
Horse riders are also less likely to be in situations where we are on the road annoying motorists with our slowness (although I've had times) so we aren't in the public eye as much. When I'm riding on the road and hear/see a motorist coming I move onto the grass verge if available (which cyclists can't really do).

Usually when we're annoying other motorists we're driving cars pulling floats going along windy roads with double lines driving REALLY slowly (the slowness is for the horse's sake).
Last edited by Summernight on Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
outnabike
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

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

Postby outnabike » Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:24 pm

A bike may not kick you, but if it says time to get off, it will let you know it... :)

Image
Vivente World Randonneur complete with panniers

diggler
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

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

Postby diggler » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:02 pm

MHL and plain packaging of cigarettes. Australia is the only country in the world with these insane laws. Just goes to show how wrong and out of touch with the rest of the world the MHL is.
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.

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 Sep 29, 2014 9:29 pm

Parliament is busting their hump to get new powers for ASIO in place to deal with a real and present threat of terrorism in Australia. Privacy, freedom, balanced against safety, security. There is always a continuum and we need to draw the line, as a society, about where it gets drawn. I have an issue with government intervention but I have a bigger issue with anyone trying to kill my family for any reason they choose to imagine, I don't want them to die because our intelligence organisation was not allowed to gather intelligence to protect them.

Helmets and plain packaging is the same deal. You have to draw the line, and this isn't always easy. Just bear in mind that progressive legal changes aren't always a good idea!

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 » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:44 pm

Hmphhh. Not sure about comparing those three things. Certainly, cigarettes have a long documented history of killing people, and of corporations lying about this risk. The risk of dying from terrorism or the kind of head injuries bicycle helmets prevent, not so much.

Percrime
Posts: 1047
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:41 am

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

Postby Percrime » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:23 pm

Didn't Chris Reeve break his NECK?

User avatar
Summernight
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Summernight » Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:34 am

Percrime wrote:Didn't Chris Reeve break his NECK?
Yup.

Not knowing too much about the actual incident I had thought it was done in a showjumping event but it turns out it was over solid obstacles (cross country). From internet research now it turns out he was wearing a helmet. So this post (and my previous ones) don't contribute anything to the helmet debate. Sorry... :P

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

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

Postby human909 » Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:52 pm

Summernight wrote:Sorry... :P
You are forgiven. Please perform 10 helmetless protest rides as penance. :P

User avatar
Summernight
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby Summernight » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:12 am

human909 wrote:
Summernight wrote:Sorry... :P
You are forgiven. Please perform 10 helmetless protest rides as penance. :P
Can I do them on the horse? :lol:

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

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

Postby softy » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:46 pm

Xplora wrote:Parliament is busting their hump to get new powers for ASIO in place to deal with a real and present threat of terrorism in Australia. Privacy, freedom, balanced against safety, security. There is always a continuum and we need to draw the line, as a society, about where it gets drawn. I have an issue with government intervention but I have a bigger issue with anyone trying to kill my family for any reason they choose to imagine, I don't want them to die because our intelligence organisation was not allowed to gather intelligence to protect them.

Helmets and plain packaging is the same deal. You have to draw the line, and this isn't always easy. Just bear in mind that progressive legal changes aren't always a good idea!
This is just an insane comparison!
Home grown terrorist! Well there is a lot of talk, but ask yourself what terrorist act, oh the ones they were going to go. Hmmm, no evidence has been presented. Oh and yes these super laws are being put in place for 10 years! Why so long, is this the time frame the government believes this war will go on!

Well everyone can come to their own answer, I personal want to see evidence before making such sweeping law changes.

As for smoking I swing two ways on this, it is the only legal product that is not allowed to display its logo, why? Yes it does kill a lot of people, but alcohol is no angel.

Head injuries on bicycles doesn't even rate on the scale compared to the two above.

tcdev
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:08 pm
Location: Sydney
Contact:

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

Postby tcdev » Fri Oct 03, 2014 10:53 pm

I was pretty peeved when they introduced MHL - as I spent my entire youth on a bike without a helmet - but have to say these days it really doesn't bother me and I'd probably choose to wear one now if the law ever changed. It would certainly be mandatory for my daughter, in any case!

I get the whole nanny-state argument and agree for the most part; Australian laws cater to the lowest common denominator which sometimes spoils it for anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Survival of the fittest and all that... do we really want the gene pool to include those that are incapable of surviving the 21st century?

MHL aside, as a new cyclist I notice quite a few riders sans helmet, for the most part on dedicated cycle tracks or at worst, the footpaths. I wondered whether the MHL laws only applied to the roads, but it appears not. Interesting that so many riders disobey the MHL!
2015 Giant XTC Advanced 29er 1 (2016 frame)
2011 Schwinn Sporterra Comp
2021 Giant Contend AR1

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 » Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:04 pm

tcdev wrote:I was pretty peeved when they introduced MHL - as I spent my entire youth on a bike without a helmet - but have to say these days it really doesn't bother me and I'd probably choose to wear one now if the law ever changed.
Pretty much all the same experience and actions for me too.

tcdev wrote:I notice quite a few riders sans helmet, for the most part on dedicated cycle tracks or at worst, the footpaths. I wondered whether the MHL laws only applied to the roads, but it appears not. Interesting that so many riders disobey the MHL!
:wink: 8)
Simon & Garfunkel wrote:Slip slidin' away

You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away
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 » Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:50 pm

softy wrote: This is just an insane comparison!
It's not a comparison, it's a comment on the process that our society adopts to determine "what are we happy with, legally?". There is a sliding scale where your liberty becomes less important as your physical safety becomes more important. We tend to trade your human rights for safety measures. And that's OK. The key is "where do we draw the line?" and "is this acceptable for most people?"

Bicycle safety seems to draw the line at helmets and handlebar bells, rather than other more serious measures that slow down cars!

User avatar
outnabike
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

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

Postby outnabike » Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:44 pm

Xplora wrote:
softy wrote: This is just an insane comparison!
It's not a comparison, it's a comment on the process that our society adopts to determine "what are we happy with, legally?". There is a sliding scale where your liberty becomes less important as your physical safety becomes more important. We tend to trade your human rights for safety measures. And that's OK. The key is "where do we draw the line?" and "is this acceptable for most people?"

Bicycle safety seems to draw the line at helmets and handlebar bells, rather than other more serious measures that slow down cars![/quote


Bells should be made heavier and removable so you can chuck em... perfect shape...that would not be safety but sure would make me feel better on occasion.
Vivente World Randonneur complete with panniers

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 Oct 04, 2014 4:51 pm

Xplora wrote:Parliament is busting their hump to get new powers for ASIO in place to deal with a real and present threat of terrorism in Australia. Privacy, freedom, balanced against safety, security. There is always a continuum and we need to draw the line, as a society, about where it gets drawn. I have an issue with government intervention but I have a bigger issue with anyone trying to kill my family for any reason they choose to imagine, I don't want them to die because our intelligence organisation was not allowed to gather intelligence to protect them.

Helmets and plain packaging is the same deal. You have to draw the line, and this isn't always easy. Just bear in mind that progressive legal changes aren't always a good idea!
I have a huge issue with the government snooping on everyone. If our freedoms are taken away what exactly are we fighting for?

Although I have an issue in relation to freedom to choose with MHLs, I think the much stronger argument is about how it gives the message that cycling is somehow more dangerous than other pursuits which do not require a helmet and also on ineffectiveness of the law. If helmet laws were truly effective we should have seen head injuries, as a proportion of total cyclist injuries, drop. This has not happened.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

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 » Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:56 pm

outnabike wrote:Bells should be made heavier and removable so you can chuck em... perfect shape...that would not be safety but sure would make me feel better on occasion.
My wife's bike bell is almost ideal for the purpose - must work on a quick-release monting :P

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

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

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

Postby toolonglegs » Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:57 pm

Man my kids bitch and moan big time when they have to wear a helmet on a ride just with me... But when they are going on a organized group ride not a squeak!.
For the record they rarely wear helmets ( like 90% of kids here in France ) ... But funnily enough I got a telling off on Strava for a picture of my daughter happily cruising along hair blowing in the wind... Big smile on face... For no helmet! ... From a Frenchman as well !!!.
For the record I only wear helmets when obliged to in events / work obliges helmet use / group rides and poor weather ( sometimes )... Always mtb'ing
Caps are just so much cooler ;-) .

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 Oct 07, 2014 9:05 am

Xplora wrote:Bicycle safety seems to draw the line at helmets and handlebar bells, rather than other more serious measures that slow down cars!
While there is certainly room for improvement, you are, well, wrong.

City of Sydney just got the speed limit dropped to 40 for the sake of pedestrians and cyclists (not far enough, but a step in the right direction). There are almost infinitely more bicycle paths and shared paths than there were when I first started to riding (to work) in 2004/5. And that's just off the top of my 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 Oct 07, 2014 9:12 am

DavidS wrote:If helmet laws were truly effective we should have seen head injuries, as a proportion of total cyclist injuries, drop. This has not happened.
Not necessarily. Helmets reduce the severity of head injuries. You are in an accident and get a scratch on your forehead, head injury. One of the recent studies looked at hospital records and there was a much lower rate of head surgery (I am not Dr in case you had not noticed) needed for cyclists that had been in an accident and were wearing their helmets. IOW, helmets do their job (to a degree).

But... the numbers are small (although still much higher than the number of victims of terrorism on Australian soil), so this does not really justify MHLs.

User avatar
queequeg
Posts: 6479
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 am

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

Postby queequeg » Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:26 am

simonn wrote:
DavidS wrote:If helmet laws were truly effective we should have seen head injuries, as a proportion of total cyclist injuries, drop. This has not happened.
Not necessarily. Helmets reduce the severity of head injuries. You are in an accident and get a scratch on your forehead, head injury. One of the recent studies looked at hospital records and there was a much lower rate of head surgery (I am not Dr in case you had not noticed) needed for cyclists that had been in an accident and were wearing their helmets. IOW, helmets do their job (to a degree).

But... the numbers are small (although still much higher than the number of victims of terrorism on Australian soil), so this does not really justify MHLs.
Indeed, which makes it odd that there is no MHL for motor vehicle occupants. Despite the various other safety features in cars, PPE is missing. Imagine how much less head trauma there would be from motor vehicle accidents if motoring helmets were made mandatory. If it just saves one life....
'11 Lynskey Cooper CX, '00 Hillbrick Steel Racing (Total Rebuild '10), '16 Cervelo R5, '18 Mason BokekTi

User avatar
Dragster1
Posts: 1540
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:46 pm
Location: Eluding motorist

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

Postby Dragster1 » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:34 am

simonn wrote:
DavidS wrote:If helmet laws were truly effective we should have seen head injuries, as a proportion of total cyclist injuries, drop. This has not happened.
Not necessarily. Helmets reduce the severity of head injuries. You are in an accident and get a scratch on your forehead, head injury. One of the recent studies looked at hospital records and there was a much lower rate of head surgery (I am not Dr in case you had not noticed) needed for cyclists that had been in an accident and were wearing their helmets. IOW, helmets do their job (to a degree).

But... the numbers are small (although still much higher than the number of victims of terrorism on Australian soil), so this does not really justify MHLs.
I read a report on the MHL laws when they were fist introduced in Vic 90s the report stated that there was a reduction in head trauma from cyclists in hospitals but it was achieved in two ways 1 the reduction of cyclist 2 from wearing the helmet. I would say there would be a lot of unreported cases of reduced mild concussion, scratches and bruises which a light weight helmet would more likely to protect against not severe head trauma. I rode in the days of no helmets trying to get the biggest air on table tops down at the local bmx track and hitting the deck hard was common.

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 » Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:12 pm

queequeg wrote:Indeed, which makes it odd that there is no MHL for motor vehicle occupants. Despite the various other safety features in cars, PPE is missing. Imagine how much less head trauma there would be from motor vehicle accidents if motoring helmets were made mandatory. If it just saves one life....
No lid laws in smokeboxes because, as Sir Humphrey would have said: "What a courageous decision Minister!"
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6734
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

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

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:30 pm

This is interesting, something linked to by Slidetaker in another thread.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/rel ... 10906.html
Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research

Bicyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles, new research suggests.

Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without

The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

“This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance,” said Dr Walker, from the University’s Department of Psychology.

“By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgements.

“We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.

“Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.”

Dr Walker suggests the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is down to how cyclists are perceived as a group.

“We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong,” said Dr Walker.

“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.

“This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without.

“The idea that helmeted cyclists are more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected would explain why drivers leave less space when passing.

“In reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without.

“The best answer is for different types of road user to understand each other better.

“Most adult cyclists know what it is like to drive a car, but relatively few motorists ride bicycles in traffic, and so don’t know the issues cyclists face.

“There should definitely be more information on the needs of other road users when people learn to drive, and practical experience would be even better.

“When people try cycling, they nearly always say it changes the way they treat other road users when they get back in their cars.”

The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars.

The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer.

However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars.

Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.

To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist.

Whilst wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) more space when passing.

In future research, Dr Walker hopes to discover whether this was because female riders are seen as less predictable than male riders, or because women are not seen riding bicycles as often as men on the UK’s roads.


Top Notes
11,257 adult cyclists were injured and 109 killed on the UK’s roads in 2004, the latest year for which figures are available. However, for each bicycle accident officially recorded there are as many as 14 more which do not go on police records, and so the number injured is certainly an under-estimate. Being struck by an overtaking car is arguably the most dangerous form of collision for a cyclist, with a particularly high mortality rate.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle

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 Oct 07, 2014 10:34 pm

That's quite old news Colin. It's interesting, but a shame the study hasn't been repeated properly, to my knowledge.

Anecdotally, it seems like I get given more distance since going almost always helmetless, by most drivers, but it doesn't seem to have reduced infrequent 'punishment' passes - I think for the minority of moron motorists who really hate cyclists and are a dumb enough to endanger their lives, not wearing a helmet probably inflames them even more. However, i experience such driving only rarely so it's hard to say for sure.

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 Oct 07, 2014 10:50 pm

simonn wrote: City of Sydney ....
Picking the most progressive city council in Australia, which covers an incredibly small patch of land compared to, say Blacktown City Council, which spends a large chunk of its time in virtual gridlock, isn't evidence that my post doesn't apply - the exception is not the rule.

I agree positive steps are made some times, in some places, but not every situation is covered by that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users