Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[il padrone]

That's why many women I know prefer to ride a scooter for short trips as it gets around the helmet thing which is a no go for them.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... index.html

Scooter riders must wear a helmet under the Victorian road rules. And they cannot be ridden on roads with a speed limit above 50kmh, so they're really not so handy

[il padrone]

[human909]

While reading the local fish&chip wrapper I came across this story... It did ocurr to me that the police and Australian society in general seem to be more tolerant of people breaking the law with marijuana than with riding without helmets.

POT smoking protesters are free to blaze up illegal drugs in a city park under police nose

POT smoking protesters are free to blaze up illegal drugs in a city park under police noses.

Victoria Police is not acting over illegal drug use at regular mass dope smoking picnics in Melbourne, describing the events as “freedom of expression”.

......

Police for years have turned a blind eye to the hundreds and sometimes thousands of drug users breaking the law at the events, run by pro-legalisation campaigners Free Cannabis Community.

Victoria Police confirmed they were aware of the gatherings but no arrests were made at the last picnic.

Spokeswoman Leonie Johnson said it was illegal to smoke cannabis, but police used discretion.

“Police were not required to attend Flagstaff Gardens, however monitored the event as they do for demonstrations every day across Melbourne,” she said.

She said it was believed “the actions of those taking part in the demonstration were to convey a freedom of expression” and police were in close contact with event organisers.

.........

He said they had a good relationship with police and the purpose was to “overcome the negative effect of prohibition and the isolation when there is nowhere for stoners to go”.

.........

“I back their judgment when it comes to how best to use their powers and when they need to intervene,” she said.

If only cyclists had as much freedom as some illicit drug users.

(I'm sure there are varied opinions on this forum about marijuana. But I'm not sure we need to open another can of worms! Personally I find beer refreshing enough after a ride, but I'm tolerant if other people enjoy other ways to relax...)

[Mulger bill]

But I'm not sure we need to open another can of worms!

I know we don't and we won't.

[warthog1]

It would have been an interesting convo though

[mikesbytes]

While reading the local fish&chip wrapper I came across this story... It did ocurr to me that the police and Australian society in general seem to be more tolerant of people breaking the law with marijuana than with riding without helmets.

POT smoking protesters are free to blaze up illegal drugs in a city park under police nose

POT smoking protesters are free to blaze up illegal drugs in a city park under police noses.

Victoria Police is not acting over illegal drug use at regular mass dope smoking picnics in Melbourne, describing the events as “freedom of expression”.

......

Police for years have turned a blind eye to the hundreds and sometimes thousands of drug users breaking the law at the events, run by pro-legalisation campaigners Free Cannabis Community.

Victoria Police confirmed they were aware of the gatherings but no arrests were made at the last picnic.

Spokeswoman Leonie Johnson said it was illegal to smoke cannabis, but police used discretion.

“Police were not required to attend Flagstaff Gardens, however monitored the event as they do for demonstrations every day across Melbourne,” she said.

She said it was believed “the actions of those taking part in the demonstration were to convey a freedom of expression” and police were in close contact with event organisers.

.........

He said they had a good relationship with police and the purpose was to “overcome the negative effect of prohibition and the isolation when there is nowhere for stoners to go”.

.........

“I back their judgment when it comes to how best to use their powers and when they need to intervene,” she said.

If only cyclists had as much freedom as some illicit drug users.

(I'm sure there are varied opinions on this forum about marijuana. But I'm not sure we need to open another can of worms! Personally I find beer refreshing enough after a ride, but I'm tolerant if other people enjoy other ways to relax...)

And then the police used discretion when they drove home stoned?

[ColinOldnCranky]

FindBruce has stated, as part of another conversation that a unicycle is not a bicycle, its a wheeled recreational vehicle. I think that means that Helmets are not mandatory for unicycle riding

That's the case in QLD.

That's why many women I know prefer to ride a scooter for short trips as it gets around the helmet thing which is a no go for them.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... index.html

It's the same in most jurisdictions.

Though SA did, up until a couple of years back, treat WRDs a little differently. Skateboarders and cyclists could not ride on paths, nor even Rundle St Mall and similar (yet could ride on major roads like Henley Beach Road) and had to wear helmets.

I know that they changed some of their related legislation since including the right to use footpaths but I am not sure about helmets.

But by and large states tend to frame their legislation to mirror the national model legislation.

[Comedian]

Interesting news from France..

http://road.cc/content/news/215619-fran ... -and-under

[warthog1]

What has happened to the proud, revolutionary heritage of the French people?
Are they cowed and subservient sheeple like us now?

[Comedian]

What has happened to the proud, revolutionary heritage of the French people?
Are they cowed and subservient sheeple like us now?

There is a little part of me.. as a parent that says "maybe it's not such a bad thing" as my boy and girl both had some epic crashes while they were learning to ride. Having said that, I think the benefit would be so small that the disadvantage would likely out weigh it.

I think in Australia that if we ever had a repeal it would be packaged with something like this. I think it's critical that children can ride without a helmet after the age the french have selected - as that's when they are forming their transport habits for their adult life. Up until that age, they probably aren't so concerned about the helmet thing.

[warthog1]

I'd be concerned it's the thin edge of the wedge and that a blanket law for everybody is not far behind.
My kids had a few bingles, as did I. They had helmets on, I did not, on the sturmey archer t-bar equipped dragster

[Mulger bill]

Interesting news from France..

http://road.cc/content/news/215619-fran ... -and-under

Now is the chance for proper research into takeup and retention rates amongst the younger riders. It'd be cool if likely unintended consequences could be examined too.
Of course noone will fund something as subversive as that...

[Thoglette]

Now is the chance for proper research into takeup and retention rates amongst the younger riders. It'd be cool if likely unintended consequences could be examined too.
Of course noone will fund something as subversive as that...

No, not when the numbers are well in from NZ and here. NZ about 50% (transport.gov.nz 2012). AU cycling to school rates dropped by 85% (Heart Foundation study 2012).

The pro-helmet LAW crowd have to hang their hats on dodgy statistics. A slip-slop-slap type campaign would be much more effective than MHL for France. Based on the NT experience it's only going to exacerbate their internal problems with the internally dispossessed (who already hate the gendarmes).

[yugyug]

Interesting news from France..

http://road.cc/content/news/215619-fran ... -and-under

I can think of several reasons why this is bad policy.

As mentioned, it might become a 'thin edge of the wedge' tactic to broaden its scope to older kids and adults.

As well discussed, helmets can be deterrent to cycling. So it was just argued that kids under 12 likely don't feel the stigma of a helmet, nor are deterred by the message of risk it communicates. But their parents certainly are. Therefore: 1. parents may not encourage their kids to ride because they don't appreciate the look, which may trivially be about style, but also comfort and social expression, and 2, more consequentially, parents will be deterred by the message of risk it communicates. Is cycling really so dangerous for kids it requires a helmet? Some cycling like BMX, sure, but not riding around the playground or the lake, and parents should be able to assess that risk rather than have a blanket law without exclusion.The end result is that kids will be wearing helmets for safe forms of riding, and this will send a false message that safe forms of riding are actually unsafe, a big deterrent for ill-informed parents.

Additionally, I don't believe the efficacy science for helmets on children is adequate. I know of few studies. There are key issues with helmets for children. Firstly, the weight and size of helmets are relatively greater than for adults. This means the risk of rotational concussion and neck injuries caused by helmets may be greater than for adults. Secondly, the greater relative size increases the target area of the head. This is may increase the risk of a head impact. Kids, like adults, have a natural kinaesthetic awareness of their body and I suspect that a helmet messes with this perception, especially in young kids.

There is also the risk of strangulation that has been documented by kids getting their straps caught on trees and play equipment etc - the broader point of this is that helmets are safety equipment that require skill and responsibility to use, and young kids may not be mature enough to have that skill and responsibility. Conversely, there is nothing required to go sans helmet and rely on the natural evolved properties of the human skull to protect your head, which seems to be working very well given the number of adults walking around alive.

I question whether there is really even a problem outside of outside of BMX or other obviously risk forms of cycling. Kids are low to the ground and don't ride as fast as adults. Yes, you can say that their skulls are less developed, but then so are their neck muscles and ability to remove the helmet in adverse situations.

If some health experts use data to argue there is a problem, I suspect its probably because, like with adults, the the data does not distinguish between different forms of cycling. And like with adults, any such data is probably contaminated by automobile caused conditions, in which kids are suffering heads injuries from automobile collisions that are traumatic enough a helmet probably wouldn't help anyway. If motorists can't stop mowing down kids on footpaths and on quiet back streets, a helmet law isn't going to improve the situation much, we have a much bigger problem (which we do).

FFS I see kids wearing their helmets for the most benign forms of play. Kids on tricycles with rear adult steerer attachments. Its crazy.

FYI I let my 5 year old kid ride helmetfree in the park most of the time. He is gutsy and fast and has loads of spills as you would expect, and not once has he had a head injury. No injury greater than a scraped palm or knee. I monitor him very closely when he is riding because I have a strong personal interest in cycling risk and safety and the helmet issue and want to observe his cycling development with and without a helmet. I have seen him fall many times and avoid head contact by involuntarily lifting his head (in the same way as seen over and over in that famous clip of the Dutch cyclists falling on the icy corner). I suspect that if he was wearing a helmet some of these falls would result in head strikes. I also suspect that not wearing a helmet has helped develop this instinct, and that wearing a helmet all the time could retard it. I also feel better knowing he is not burdened by the weight of the helmet, or susceptible to being accidentally strangled or given a neck injury.

[biker jk]

Apologies if this has been posted earlier.

[trailgumby]

800 cycling deaths in Australia per year? (@1:56) He's out by at least an order of magnitude

Also completely ignores the depressive impact that the compulsory nature of our helmet legislation has on participation rates and the flow-through to increased obesity rates and inactivity-related disease.

Otherwise, a good piece on showing that helmets do, on balance, help reduce injury severity once you're in an accident.

[Thoglette]

Also completely ignores the depressive impact that the compulsory nature of our helmet legislation has on participation rates and the flow-through to increased obesity rates and inactivity-related disease.

Which is the point.
We don't have mandatory slip-slop-slap laws.
We don't have mandatory life jacket laws.
We don't have laws stopping you mowing in your thongs.
We don't have swimming licenses.
We don't have MHL for showering and bathing for the over eighties.

Yet all of these things are much more likely to result in serious injury or death.

Helmets are useful for specific types of cycling activity: those involving high speeds and high likelihood of single-vehicle accidents: BMX, MTB, road racing. Those of us with long exposure times to medium levels of risk (high speed commuters and those doing training miles) are likely to benefit. Strangely enough these are exactly the sorts of people who wore helmets BEFORE MHL.

Helmets are little or no use to those doing short distances or at low speed: i.e, those who don't need a shower afterwards. School kids, people nipping down to the shop, people riding 1km to the trainstation or bus stop, university students, and people tootling around generally. Strangely enough these are exactly the sorts of people who stopped riding after we got MHL.

The efficacy of helmets is, it turns out, irrelevant to the MHL question.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I don't pop into this thread much but thought I'd leave these charts I did a little while back for people to ponder. We all know correlation <> causation but what I would say is that MHL is symptomatic of the culture where driver convenience is valued more highly than human life. The pyramid of priority wrt transport modes and style of city design is bass-ackwards.









France is an unusual one in that last chart. Aside from Sydney of course !

[Comedian]

I saw this and liked it the other day.

NYC has no helmet law, 38 million bike share trips & 0 deaths.
Seattle has a helmet law & 1 dead bike share system

https://twitter.com/JSadikKhan/status/8 ... 2846287872

[Mike Ayling]

We don't have mandatory life jacket laws.

We do in Victoria.

Mike

[bychosis]

We don't have mandatory life jacket laws.

We do in Victoria.

Mike

And in NSW, admittedly not for all water activities though. Kayaking, small boats, children, ocean bar crossing. (I will admit I'm not fully up with it though so won't be 100% correct)

[human909]

You are quite right we do have life jacket laws. But again we have targetting them at minority user groups and ignored the major user group where most of the deaths occur! So it is all sounding a little familiar....

Compulsory life jackets seems to be focused on people not even in the water. Even rock fishermen have been considered as targets. Yet swimmers where most drownings occur and where there is the most benefit of compulsory life jacket laws are the majority and thus not targeted.

The compulsory life jacket laws seem a little ridiculous when you have friends playing with inflatable craft on small rivers. This includes the Yarra Inflatable Regatta.


Again the real risk takers on the water normally don't need government encouragement. I dabble in white(ish)water kayayking and have friends who take it more seriously. Pretty much nobody jumps into whitewater kayaking without a life jacket and a helmet*.

*helmets are not compulsory, but they are a damn good idea in whitewater.

[Mulger bill]

*helmets are not compulsory, but they are a damn good idea in whitewater.[/i]

Nor climbing if I recall your earlier posts correct...

The law is an ass

[human909]

*helmets are not compulsory, but they are a damn good idea in whitewater.[/i]

Nor climbing if I recall your earlier posts correct...

The law is an ass

Yep. I find the climbing scene as an amazing example of SELF regulation. If the government got involved I would expect things to be LESS safe. Climbers go out knowing what they do has risk and they make intelligent choices regarding that. They buy equipment from reputable manufactures and use it after being trained in its use (self or peer trained). They have peer assessment of guide books that give guidance on climbing areas and they take individual and collective responsibility for maintaining a safe environment.

Overall the drive to the destination and home is pretty much as risky as the activity.

Oh and if you have some downtime to watch a movie. I highly recommend this documentary. It is totally palatable and humourous even for people who have no idea or context about rock climbing. It is just a good laugh!



Politics:

Individual and community regulation over safety has existed for millennia. We don't need government poking their heads into everything.
Thankfully the fundamental structure of our laws regulate what we CAN'T do not what we CAN do. So plenty of things go completely unregulated. Sadly however, there are plenty of people in government/society who think we DO need to regulate what people do.

I wholeheartedly support a generous society that looks after its citizens (AKA socialist society). But I'm also a libertarian. If it doesn't cause harm to others then let people be free.

[Thoglette]

We don't have mandatory life jacket laws.

We do in Victoria.

And in NSW,

Mandatory possession or mandatory wearing?