Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
-
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby softy » Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:16 am
My sister has a nutter husband, he pointed and threatened her and the neighbour with a gun. Was arrested for it.
Still has guns, figure that (in australia)
But guns are really for another thread.
Shopping centre bike parking;
Many cars in a carpark are worth more than 5000, and can be damage quite easily. In fact a bang could be to the value of 5000. So ride your bike and shop!
Helmets to the shop;
The reason it is a pain, is because it is another item to carry handle, yes some backpacks have special holders but it all becomes an expense, yes you can strap it to your bike, but it is just a hassle, and you walk around the shop with helmet hair wearing your normal clothes. Who wants to look like this! Why it is a detterent for the short small commutes by the people who just want it to be transport.
- mikesbytes
- 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 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:55 pm
-
- 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 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:53 pm
No, the media hide it for them. Pauline Hanson was brought down because the media didn't hide her.Xplora wrote:
Leyonholm is probably correct in his assertion. He is part of the democratic process - he is a cross bench senator. He has very little power or ability to get legislation acted upon, as our hung parliament recently proved. Wilkie failed to get his reforms, the independents failed to get their reforms. He's not really scum as much as an apolitical politician. The rest think the same as him, dismissive and contemptuous, they just hide it more
Look around and you can find some appalling statements and actions by our polis. All sides.
- 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 Sep 16, 2015 7:38 pm
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- 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 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:15 am
I'm not understanding how MHL's are related?
Besides which the M/C rider has almost certainly done something to attract the cop's attention already.....
- 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 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:27 am
Beware if you mount helmet lights too..... makes that helmet not legally compliant.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- 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 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:42 am
So your moment above the speed limit entitles the police to give you a cavity search and check your entire criminal record? You have a different view of liberty to me. Of course he got a cavity search, he obviously attracted the cop's attention already...fat and old wrote:I'm not understanding how MHL's are related?
Besides which the M/C rider has almost certainly done something to attract the cop's attention already.....
It's a pointless infraction, and is precisely why there is a Senate enquiry into nanny state right now.
- 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 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:51 am
Stairwells are particular problems for left property. Fire safety laws. Basically nothing can be left in a fire well, even in the lower or upper dead ends. Invalidates building fire insurance. Big commercial incentive to enforce. Leaving elsewhere (like the escalator railing) is far less critical.outnabike wrote:Hate to say it but I was booted out of the plaza for exactly this same action except it was a stair well rail, and in the quietest dead end you could find in a shopping centreil padrone wrote:Ride the bike, roll it into the centre, lock it up to the rails next to the escalator wellqueequeg wrote:I used to ride to the local supermarket near my old house and I never bothered with a lock as I could just park right out the front of the shop. That is a bit different to having to ride my bicycle into the underground multi storey Carpark and find my way to sub level 19 where the bike racks are.
I have done this on a couple of occasions that I have ridden to one local centre that lacks any parking rails or facility outside. The bike takes up less room than the average pram, and the tyres will do no damage to their fine tiled floors. I was half-hoping one of their security goons would be waiting when I returned, so I could ratchet up a complaint to the management about discriminatory facilities, but there was no hassle caused. I just rode home.
Don't go to those shopping centres by bike much at all, not even too much by car. My $$$ goes to other suppliers.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
-
- 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 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:56 pm
And I think you have a different idea of what "relevance" is to me HOW is this relevant to MHL's?Xplora wrote:So your moment above the speed limit entitles the police to give you a cavity search and check your entire criminal record? You have a different view of liberty to me. Of course he got a cavity search, he obviously attracted the cop's attention already...fat and old wrote:I'm not understanding how MHL's are related?
Besides which the M/C rider has almost certainly done something to attract the cop's attention already.....
It's a pointless infraction, and is precisely why there is a Senate enquiry into nanny state right now.
BTW....I found nothing about cavity searches either? And I have not seen anything at all to suggest that the rider was pulled up because he was wearing a camera on his head.......having been pulled over more than a few times when on the M/C I have to admit that I attracted the attention every time, save for Booze Bus type situations.
Not questioning the pointlessness of the infraction....on which I agree with you.
-
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby softy » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:29 pm
A helmet is designed to meet standards and testing, the attachment being, lights/cameras may impair the operation in an accident, therefore not meeting the intent of the standard.
The question being, if the helmet is now impaired, and may not meet the requirements of the standard (unless it is an accessory approved by the manufacturer). How do the police know, or prove it impairs the helmet without carrying out testing? They don't! So it will be interesting to see the precedent set in this court action..
If the challenge fails, it is quite feesible it could also be applied to bicycle helmets......
So watch this space........
- mikesbytes
- 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 » Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:10 am
- rustguard
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:31 am
- Location: Perth, WA
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby rustguard » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:41 pm
- 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 Sep 18, 2015 11:28 pm
*cough*rustguard wrote:The Victorian Police have an industrious 227 year long record of corruption, I see it hasn't changed.
Maybe 162 was the buttons you meant to hit ?
Wikipedia wrote:Victoria Police is the primary law enforcement agency of Victoria, Australia. It was formed in 1853
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- rustguard
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:31 am
- Location: Perth, WA
- Contact:
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby rustguard » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:18 pm
sorry Victorians
That is to say they were corrupt when they set foot on the ground. All well documented unfortunatly
Was it the late eighties or the early nineties when they used to shoot an innocent person every 4 weeks?
- 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 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:49 pm
You seem to be jumping into the realms of fantasy now.rustguard wrote:No they sprung from the NSW police, before Victoria was annexed. Victoria was already there it was just called NSW lol
sorry Victorians
That is to say they were corrupt when they set foot on the ground. All well documented unfortunatly
Was it the late eighties or the early nineties when they used to shoot an innocent person every 4 weeks?
Victoria's first police depot opened in Richmond in 1853. Before that the Port Phillip District had their own groups of Native Police Corps including the Rural Bench Constabulary, Mounted Police, and Border Police - nothing to do with the NSW Police.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- 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 » Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:55 pm
http://www.freestylecyclists.org/
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21317
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby g-boaf » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:32 am
Broken collarbone and helmet cracked in a number of places (I had a look at it), but he seemed to have no head injuries thank goodness.
The helmet in that case seemed to do its job well.
Even if you are going slowly, accidents still can happen despite your best intentions. Nobody is infallible.il padrone wrote:Without a helmet this awareness would be even more elevated.
- 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 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:36 am
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby human909 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:52 pm
True we should mandate helmets for walking. Oh and all contact sports.... Neck braces too, the guy on TV yesterday trip playing backyard cricket and broke his neck.g-boaf wrote:Even if you are going slowly, accidents still can happen despite your best intentions. Nobody is infallible.
Lets not cover the world in cotton wool. Nobody is infallible but with the right skills and concentration you can keep yourself damn safe. The Dutch do a damn fine job of it. Other sportsmen do a damn good job of it.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21317
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby g-boaf » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:09 pm
So, with your right skills, nothing is ever going to happen to you, ever?human909 wrote:True we should mandate helmets for walking. Oh and all contact sports.... Neck braces too, the guy on TV yesterday trip playing backyard cricket and broke his neck.g-boaf wrote:Even if you are going slowly, accidents still can happen despite your best intentions. Nobody is infallible.
Lets covering the world in cotton wool. Nobody is infallible but with the right skills and concentration you can keep yourself damn safe. The Dutch do a damn fine job of it.
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby human909 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:24 pm
I didn't say that. (Though to continue you with your hyperbole, what is your protection as a pedestrian? You are mere meters away from high speed cars with only your skills stopping you from straying into their path. )g-boaf wrote:So, with your right skills, nothing is ever going to happen to you, ever?
We should be able to choose how we ride and what protection we need. That is something the rest of the world is capable of, why should Australians not be allowed the same freedom?
Some people are more fragile than others. Others have better skills or more cautious. I was mountain biking in the Arizona desert two weeks ago. My main protection from rocks, cacti and shear drops was my skills. My helmet was secondary but I was happy to have it for that level of risk. I don't believe I need one in many situations in urban riding.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21317
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby g-boaf » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:27 pm
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby human909 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:46 pm
Touche. However while you continue to use poor arguments like "nobody is infallible" it is hard not to run with it. Instead a sensible discussion about safety and control of risk is much better but that doesn't seem to be the way you want to play things.g-boaf wrote:Only as much hyperbole as you used as well.
Like I've sad many time previously. I rock climb. I am used to having sensible discussion regarding risk and risk management. Know your skills and environment and then decide what protection is needed.
(This is a mile long ridge at over 10,000feet. Many people choose to do it unroped and without helmets. We roped up, but for the most part if we fell it would be 5 or 10 meters of falling down rock before the rope would do anything. I and my two partners got overtaken on that ridge line by two climbers who were choosing to do it unroped. Life isn't particularly risky if you make the right choices for your own circumstances.)
-
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm
Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr
Postby softy » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:18 pm
As previously discussed;
If you have an accident and the helmet breaks, it has exceeded it's design limitations. This is because the helmet is designed to slow the moving head down by crushing and absorbing the energy, if it breaks it stops doing this task of controlling the de-acceleration.
It is the same during the Australian Standard testing, when it is dropped, if it breaks it fails.
So in the example above, the helmet once again did not fully protect the wearer.
This is why one of the arguments put forward is, although they are Mandatory, they are not that effective in a accident greater than 21km/per hour or when involved in a collision with a motor vehicle.
Yes I agree they do something, but not a lot.
- 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 10, 2015 3:22 pm
Crikey, talk about putting words in a person's mouthg-boaf wrote:So, with your right skills, nothing is ever going to happen to you, ever?human909 wrote:True we should mandate helmets for walking. Oh and all contact sports.... Neck braces too, the guy on TV yesterday trip playing backyard cricket and broke his neck.g-boaf wrote:Even if you are going slowly, accidents still can happen despite your best intentions. Nobody is infallible.
Lets covering the world in cotton wool. Nobody is infallible but with the right skills and concentration you can keep yourself damn safe. The Dutch do a damn fine job of it.
Poor technique for rational discussion.
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: find_bruce
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.